Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:53 PM
21 online now:
edge, Meddle, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,642 Year: 3,679/19,786 Month: 674/1,087 Week: 43/221 Day: 14/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Author Topic:   Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 180 (20684)
10-24-2002 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Karl
10-24-2002 7:04 AM


Taking a look at that site, the picture looks quite different from this one http://www.ideacenter.org/fossrec.htm (adapted from http://www.amnh.org/enews/verteb/v28.html except the link is now dead). Taking a look at the pictures, they look remarkably similar. ("They" in this case being amphibians and the fossil)

quote:
Given that Acanthostega had true limbs, it seems that the missing links...are still missing. Despite this alleged transitional fossil which bears a striking resemblance to many living forms, the origin of the defining characteristics of tetrapods, the limbs, is still an unsolved mystery to evolutionists. --http://www.ideacenter.org/fossrec.htm

As for a tail fin, I'm sure as you can see that you could then say that those other amphibians had tail fins. Since the fossil has true limbs, it really shouldnt be classified a transitional. How about some incomplete limbs developing or something?

As for your correction on Ambulocetus' missing bones, thanks for the correction. However, researching further on this, i found here in an update,

quote:
There is no deceit (faking), or contradiction, in the article. As stated at the beginning of the article, the article on the web was originally published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now simply TJ) in 1994, the year Thewissen et al. published their original article. The material referred to is that published by Thewissen in 1994. It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence (evolutionists are quick to demand this of creationists). However, even if it is so published in the future, I don’t have much confidence in the peer review process when it comes to paleontology—there seems to be a different standard applied to these papers, compared to experimental (operational) science. So many false claims have been given credit in prestigious peer-reviewed journals that I have become rather sceptical of all the claims. For example, Gingerich’s Pakicetus story, published in the prestigious journal Science in 1983, was based on some skull fragments. Science even published, on the front cover, an artist’s reconstruction of the whole creature, with legs becoming flippers, swimming in the sea chasing fish for its lunch. It is illustrative to compare this with a more recent reconstruction based on a much more complete skeleton—it is now clearly a terrestrial creature.

As for your other question,

quote:
In the standard scheme, Protocetus is dated to the middle Lutetian, but some experts have dated it in the early Lutetian. If the older date (early Lutetian) is accepted, then Protocetus is contemporaneous with Rodhocetus and Indocetus. In that case, what is believed to have been a fully marine archaeocete was already on the scene at or near the time archaeocetes first appear in the fossil record.

As for Ambulocetus natans, it has been found in middle Eocene strata in Pakistan by Hans Thewissen,(~40mya)
The first true whales found the Archeoceti - the earliest of which are called Pakicetids; found in Pakistan (~50-51 mya, early Eocene).

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Karl, posted 10-24-2002 7:04 AM Karl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2002 8:51 AM blitz77 has responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 180 (20688)
10-24-2002 8:31 AM


Unfortunately for AiG, Thewisson has published on Ambulocetus since 1994 - the refs are at the end of the web page I directed you to before. Time AiG took down their article and misleading disclaimer, methinks. The bluster about ungulates and mesonychids is just a smokescreen - an attempt to blow up a fairly minor question of whether mesonychids are actually ancestral to whales, or whether both derive from a more primitive ungulate ancestor. The latter is indicated by the biochemical analysis.

Dating of archocetes - I see this has been done before on this forum. Ebabinksi said:

quote:
The fact that all of the above critters are clustered together in geologic time with similarly shaped skulls and intermediary earbones unlike modern day whales, and that they were all mammals adapted in varying degrees to a water habitat, and that they all preceded modern cetaceans, speaks louder than the author's reliance on dating haggles to make a case for creationism. Reminds me of the old joke about two men looking up at a tall skyscraper and arguing vehemently over whether it was exactly one hundred stories tall or one-hundred-and-one stories tall by each of their careful reckonings. Then a third man comes over, in this case the author of the above article, and argues that their disagreements prove that his hypothesis -- that the building is really only a SINGLE storey tall -- makes more sense.)

To depend on the idea that Ambulocetus could not exist after Protocetus had come on the scene (and it so happen that these are the fossils we have found) is as daft as arguing that reptiles cannot have evolved from amphibians because amphibians exist today.

Back to Acanthostega - we seem to have moved onto "is it a transtional", rather than the point it illustrated, about predictions in evolution. It fits the prediction perfectly - it was found in exactly the strata that evolutionary theory predicted it should be found. Indeed, the manner of its discovery - "where the predicted transitional should be found" is evidence in itself of the animal's transitional nature. I note that you have addressed few of the primitive characteristics my reference listed, preferring the ones that are found in extant amphibia.

Your source is also wrong about the origin of limbs. Rather than being a complete mystery, it is suggested that Acanthostega's immediate ancestors evolved limbs as more advantageous for picking their way through dense aquatic vegetation.

[This message has been edited by Karl, 10-24-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:42 AM Karl has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 180 (20689)
10-24-2002 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by blitz77
10-24-2002 4:19 AM


Originally posted by blitz77:

You're thinking about the wrong thing. The sun being at the center of the solar system has been observed.

So has evolution to a certain extent.

You can make very accurate predictions with it. Evolution is totally different. It isn't a predictable science. Evolution doesn't have a model from which you can make accurate predictions or even observations (you'd need to live a long time?). Anyway, you have misconceptions about Galileo and the church.

Evoultion is biology, the solar system is physics, two difference sciences. What does Galileo have to do with this?

-His book that was condemned in the trial, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World", had received the official imprimatur of the church, and had been approved by the official Roman censor, Father Niccolo Riccardi.
-Galileo was a personal friend of both major popes that ruled during his lifetime.
-The trial represented a brief portion near the end of Galileo’s long and productive life, during which he gained wide fame for his discoveries and his books across Europe, and within the Catholic church. Contrary to popular perceptions, most churchmen, including Pope Urban VIII, were delighted with Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope.

Yeah, and it only took the Church around 450 years to pardon him. They must of really liked him to move that fast.

Of course, you might then ask why had Galileo been put on trial.

-Pope Urban VIII was in a bad mood at the time of the trial. The papacy had gone to his head, and he had spent fortunes on self-aggrandizement. In addition, he was accused of being soft on heretics by not acting stronger against the Reformers. The Thirty Years War was giving him great stress. Galileo’s Dialogue came at a very inopportune time. The pope trusted what others said about it, without reading it himself. He was led to believe, contrary to the facts, that Galileo had double-crossed him by going against explicit orders. These factors tended to make him inflexible against his former friend.
--Using information from world's greatest creation scientists from y1k to y2k

I'm not about to believe ANYTHING from a creationist's site. They are known liars and worse. You are forgetting that he was "interviewed" by the Inquisition as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 4:19 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:40 AM nos482 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 180 (20690)
10-24-2002 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by blitz77
10-24-2002 4:27 AM


Originally posted by blitz77:

How can science prove something outside the realm of science? To prove something means that you have control/mastery of it.

Who told you this?

To be able to prove God exists we must have power over God. Anyway, science deals with physical rules. You can't use the physical to prove something that is spiritual. Its like trying to make complex numbers from only real numbers.

In other words you can't use the real to prove the imaginary.

He asked can you prove that what you call "nonsense" is nonsense and you respond by saying again that it is nonsense?

If anyone told you that they were hearing voices in their head you would think that they were crazy and tell them to seek help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 4:27 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 180 (20691)
10-24-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by nos482
10-24-2002 8:34 AM


Sure, you don't have to believe them. Just watch some TV.
quote:
A PBS documentary admitted that the usual slant is quite incorrect. Astronomer and historian Owen Gingerich, often one to debunk historical inaccuracies, has researched the incident and challenges the science vs religion spin. And a recent (1999) new historical biography by Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter (an award-winning, captivating, original work we highly recommend) sheds refreshing new light on the life, times, and legacy of this giant of early science, Galileo Galilei.

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 8:34 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 10:32 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 180 (20692)
10-24-2002 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Karl
10-24-2002 8:31 AM


How about the impact of these limbs on swimming capacity-surely via natural selection it would be selected against, as it would impair their swimming. As for more on the features, in the fish-to-tetrapod series (Ahlberg’s) Acanthostega (9th in the series) has two tetrapod features which are absent in the tenth.

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Karl, posted 10-24-2002 8:31 AM Karl has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3952 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 157 of 180 (20693)
10-24-2002 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by blitz77
10-24-2002 8:08 AM


Hi Blitz,

You should be careful taking Creation ex Nihilo as "gospel" (if you'll pardon the intentional play on words).

quote:
It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal.

This is, unfortunately, somewhat out of date.

Here's a nice article - in a peer-reviewed journal - that discusses the particular "bone of contention" published in 2001, Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. And, just to clear up a bit on the whale transitional, here's another peer-reviewed article concerning an even older transitional artiodactyl/whale fossil find than Pakicetus (Himalayacetus subathuensis) from 1998: A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales.

You might want to suggest to the author of the TJ article you quoted that s/he check out the most recent research. After all, otherwise the folks at AnswersInGenesis might find themselves looking foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:08 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:58 AM Quetzal has responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 180 (20694)
10-24-2002 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Quetzal
10-24-2002 8:51 AM


Hi Quetzal, thanks for the info. (TJ didn't make that mistake, I did.) But what about the discoveries of the first true whales Archeoceti (~50-51mya)?

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2002 8:51 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2002 10:31 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 180 (20695)
10-24-2002 9:14 AM


Blitz - it's proposed that Acanthostega didn't swim much - it hung around in the weeds ambushing smaller animals that did.
  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3952 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 180 (20702)
10-24-2002 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by blitz77
10-24-2002 8:58 AM


Okay, I see you edited out the part I quoted.

Anyway, Himalayacetis IS an archeocetacean. I'm not sure you can call it a "true whale" - it's really more representative of a transitional. It was found in correlation with marine molluscs, so it was definately at least partly aquatic (hence considering it cetacea), but oxygenation analysis of the dentition indicates a possible fresh-water and marine origin. Also, the dental pattern is closer to earlier Artiodactyls like Diacodexis than anything else. It's definately a pakicetid, however. Just about 3.5 my older. The divergeance of whales from artiodactyls based on molecular comparisons indicates that the node took place somewhere around 62 mya. That makes Himalayacetis the oldest whale at about 55-56 mya. It's not a species-to-species transitional, but does add one more link in the land-to-water chain. It IS, without question, a transitional organism. How much time it spent on land vs how much in water is still open. As usual with paleontology, we'll have to wait for more fossils.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:58 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 180 (20703)
10-24-2002 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by blitz77
10-24-2002 8:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Sure, you don't have to believe them. Just watch some TV.
quote:
A PBS documentary admitted that the usual slant is quite incorrect. Astronomer and historian Owen Gingerich, often one to debunk historical inaccuracies, has researched the incident and challenges the science vs religion spin. And a recent (1999) new historical biography by Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter (an award-winning, captivating, original work we highly recommend) sheds refreshing new light on the life, times, and legacy of this giant of early science, Galileo Galilei.


The fact still remains that he was made to recant his beliefs. The politics behind it are irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:40 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
ChildOfGod2516
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 180 (69280)
11-25-2003 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LudvanB
02-12-2002 9:50 PM


Circular Reasoning: Evolutionists base the fossil record on geologic ages, then base the geologic ages on the assumption of evolution. This only proves evolutionists lack sound reasoning.

When evolutionists announce a major discovery supposedly “proving” evolution, they usually use reasoning that stretches the imagination. For example, “Lucy” was hailed as a missing link. The evidence for Lucy was a few bones scattered several meters apart. From that little evidence, an artist drew a picture of what Lucy would look like. However, it was later determined to be more like a modern chimpanzee!

Applying that logic as an Historian would get me tossed out of any university. Here is a comparable analogy to what those evolutionists do in the science departments. Let’s assume I discovered a 100-word manuscript that I want to use for a journal article. The manuscript has only two words- “to” and “major.” If I used the tactics of evolutionists, I would just make-up the other 98 words and say I have found a letter written by Abraham Lincoln to Confederate President Jefferson Davis in which Lincoln offered a secret peace plan. If I did that, my name would go down in history as the most dishonest historian of all time. Yet, that is what professors in the sciences do with the few bones and fossils they find, and they get away with it.

A History of Evolutionary Frauds

In 4th century BC Greece Aristotle, without any evidence, argued that life originates from primordial soft mass of living matter with an ascending series from plants to man.

Lamarck (1744-1829) declared that evolution is a fact, again without any evidence. He believed that habits from use or disuse of various organs would produce changes that would be inherited. For example, a giraffe got his long neck by reaching for food!!

*My reasoning*We all know that giraffes have long necks, if they evolved over thousands of years though, then they would have become extinct long ago. Giraffes have valves and arteries in their necks which control blood flow and heart pressure when it bends over to drink. If at one point giraffes didn't have all of these valves, wouldn't it's brain explode from the pressure (of the arteries pushing the needed blood to its head plus the gravity pushing more blood to its brain) when it bent over to get a drink? If even one of these valves was missing, wouldn't that happen? and if all the giraffes died, then I don't think they would be around today...because as far as I know, DEAD THINGS DON'T EVOLVE (-ttp://www.phoenixzoo.org/zoo/animals/facts/giraffe.asp)

Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species, again presented no evidence of evolution.

Attorney Charles Lyell promoted the idea of “uniformitarianism.” That is that the present is key to the past, and everything moves in a steady state.

The Bible speaks about this false idea of a “steady state” in the last days:

II Peter 3:3-7: “ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

Some Historians are also guilty of falling for the uniformitarianism myth. For example, esteemed historian Bernard Bailyn said Indians were only a “footnote” to colonial history. This view is held by most historians. Perhaps Bailyn looked around today and said “Where are the Indians, I don’t see many.” It is true. Unless you go to Gallup, New Mexico, southern South Dakota, Yakima, Washington, or some other place where large concentrations of Indians reside, you will not see many Native Americans. How often do you see a Native American in Indianapolis? When you go to Chicago? New York? San Francisco? You might come to the conclusion that there are few Indians and they never were really important factors in our history. However, in colonial America one could not walk along the eastern seaboard anywhere without running into Indians. The Native Americans played major roles in warfare tactics and war itself, colonial living arrangements, politics, economics, mission work, and practically every aspect of American life. The same occurred when Indiana was settled in the early 19th century. Indians were everywhere, and played some of the same major roles they played in colonial America. Indians are much more than a “footnote” in history, they are major players. You can now see how mistakes can be made by believing that “the present is a key to the past.” It just doesn’t work that way in science nor history.

There are no intermediate forms of evolutionary evidence found in fossils!

Nebraska Man: In the early part of the 20th century, this was hailed as a missing link by some scientists, although other scientists opposed its inclusion as a missing link. Nebraska Man had a brief history, as it was shortly determined that it was actually the tooth of a pig. Despite many scientists rejecting Nebraska Man, that some accepted it as evidence (one tooth) of a transitional creature, shows how gullible some evolutionists are. In fairness of evolutionists, we are all easily tricked about some things.

Java Man: Dr. Dubois concealed for over 30 years that he had found human skulls near his Java man at the same level.

Piltdown Man: In the first half of the 20th century many books, dissertations, master theses, and high school papers were written hailing Piltdown Man as the missing link. Scientist Henry Fairfield Osborn used the publicity surrounding the famous Scopes Monkey Trial to adorn the New York Times with his defense of evolution. The brilliant paleontologist cited Piltodown man as one of the evidences of evolution (New York Times, July 12, 1925, section 8, page 1). In 1953 it was found to be a fraud. It was the jaw bone of a modern orangutan, but its teeth had been filed down, and its bones had been artificially colored to deceive the public.

Horse Series: This is another example of the imaginative bone-arranging of evolutionists. Since 1926 this has been used by to illustrate a general increase in size reduction and the loss of toes. Perhaps you recall seeing this in your high school biology book. Once again, fraud is employed, as the fossils are not found in the proper order in the fossils, and there is no sequence in the fossils from small, many-toed ancestors to large, one-toed man. The first horse on the list is actually the “Echippus,” a contemporary fox-like animal called the “Daman” that darts in the African brush.

Dinosaurs: Evolutionists argue that the extinction of dinosaurs allowed man to evolve. However, The Bible mentions dinosaur-like creatures. Job 41 mentions a Leviathan who breathes fire, and Job 40 discusses the Behemoth that could not be caught because its tail was like a cedar. Roman Historian Pliny (2nd A.D.) in his Natural History prescribed medicine that could be used from Dragons, such as crushed bones of its spine could cure gallstones.

Archaeopteryx (ancient wing) is called a reptilelike bird. However, some scientists say it is fully a bird. Regardless, the evolutionists are wrong when they argue that the claws on the bird prove its place as proof for evolution. If they would check, they would discover that some modern birds also have claws--the ostrich has three claws, the hoatzin in South America, and the Touracoin in Africa.

Radio Carbon Fraud: This is used for dates fewer than 50,000 years ago. Evolutionists claim that the ratio of Carbon 14 (radioactive carbon) was in a steady state in time and space. However, the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying, meaning the magnetic field was stronger earlier. This means there would be less radio carbon as cosmic radiation would have been deflected. This would greatly shorten radiocarbon chronology. Contamination and selective absorption can also distort radio carbon readings.

Uranium. Lead, etc. are used for items more than 50,000 years old. Atmospheric upheavals, such as supernovas can distort results.

There is no point in listing all the frauds of evolution, and there are many more to list. To discover how there is no evidence for evolution, just carefully examine the numerous articles announcing some “link” or “proof” for evolution you often see in your newspaper or magazine. See if they actually present any hard evidence, or are just speculation about what they hope the discovery might mean. You will be surprised to find that every time, the evolutionists fail to present hard evidence for their blind faith in evolution. They will often say, “this provides evidence” for whatever point they are making. However, months later in scientific journals other scientists will question the conclusion of those who announced the “discovery” and promote alternative theories. Unfortunately, the newspaper or magazine you read never reports on these follow-up articles that question the proof for evolution.

Evidence for a Young Earth

Mt. St. Helens, (Washington State) erupted May, 1980.

Evolutionists say the petrified forests in Yellowstone are hundreds of years old. However, in one day a landslide at Mt. St. Helens created waves of Spirit Lake that stripped forests away and delivered many logs to the lake. A few years later sedimentation had buried the trees solidly, while others have no sediment around the bases.

Steam explosions in fewer than five days formed pits in the pumice. Gullies over 125 feet were developed. This resembles the Badlands topography, which evolutionists say is ancient.

A canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon was created in a few days at Mt. St. Helens, suggesting it didn’t take very long for the Grand Canyon to form.

Stalactites in caves. When you tour a cave, the guide will explain that the stalactites are millions of years old. However, at Mt. Isa, in Queensland, Australia, a 55-year-old lead mine now has stalactites!!

There are many more examples of a young earth. Suffice it to say, if you believe in evolution, you have been conned as much as if you invested in a financial scam.

-http://www.reynoldsforcongress.net/evolution.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LudvanB, posted 02-12-2002 9:50 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Rei, posted 11-25-2003 8:56 PM ChildOfGod2516 has not yet responded
 Message 164 by AdminNosy, posted 11-25-2003 9:02 PM ChildOfGod2516 has responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5093 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 163 of 180 (69294)
11-25-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by ChildOfGod2516
11-25-2003 8:14 PM


ChildOfGod2516:

I have a suspicion that you're going to be a post-and-run creationist. If you are not, a one-sentence post affirming that you are not will do, and I (and undoubtedly others) will then respond to your original post. If you do not supply such a line, we will assume that you're never going to drop by here ever again, and it's not worth our time.

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by ChildOfGod2516, posted 11-25-2003 8:14 PM ChildOfGod2516 has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 164 of 180 (69296)
11-25-2003 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by ChildOfGod2516
11-25-2003 8:14 PM


Circular Reasoning: Evolutionists base the fossil record on geologic ages, then base the geologic ages on the assumption of evolution. This only proves evolutionists lack sound reasoning.

This isn't a lack of sound reasoning. It is a lack of your knowledge of the truth of the matter. Which suggests you have been reading web sites which are lying to you.

In fact the relative order of the rocks was worked out without dates. It was noticed that some specific rocks always held specific "index" fossils. Some estimates were made of the time that might be required to lay down so much sediment and layers of the types found. The creationists who did this work realized that the time scales HAD to be beyond a few thousands of years. Eventually radiometric dating became available. Lo and behold, the relative order of the strata was born out by the dating. Since then "index" fossils can be used to date rocks without separate dating because they have already been dated numerous times.

The above is a rough outline of the truth of the situation. Any site which tells you otherwise is dishonest.

When evolutionists announce a major discovery supposedly “proving” evolution, they usually use reasoning that stretches the imagination. For example, “Lucy” was hailed as a missing link. The evidence for Lucy was a few bones scattered several meters apart. From that little evidence, an artist drew a picture of what Lucy would look like. However, it was later determined to be more like a modern chimpanzee!

I suggest you give us some references for this information. You will find if you hang around long enough that your sources are just as wrong about this one as well.

Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species, again presented no evidence of evolution.

What would you consider as evidence for evolution? You've read the "Origin of Species" I take it? I would agree that by the standards of the evidence that we have today he presented fairly little. However, that matters much less after we have amassed the evidence over the last century and a half. Again, what evidence are you looking for?

everything moves in a steady state.

This phrase is new to me. I haven't seen it tacked on to the other statement of what uniformaterianism means. Could you tell me where you got it from? (I hope not the sources you used above.)

There are too many nonsense statments in the rest of your post for me to take the time for now. I'll wait to see how you do with what we have so far. I'm also sure that while I'm writing this, others are taking it apart line by line. You are posting junk which has been posted inumerable times before.

Oops posted under the wrong name again!!

[This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-25-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by ChildOfGod2516, posted 11-25-2003 8:14 PM ChildOfGod2516 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ChildOfGod2516, posted 11-27-2003 6:43 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
ChildOfGod2516
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 180 (69630)
11-27-2003 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by AdminNosy
11-25-2003 9:02 PM


As I said in the other place I posted, I am not a genius on the subject. I have, on the other hand, seen almost all of the info I posted before in numerous places. I don't have the sources because it was in a report that my friend gave in my science class a few years ago. Some of the parts I didn't hear before, and those I included because it was included on the website. Another question I have is If we have evolved into more intelligent beings over millions and millions of years, then why is it that more than three people I know have run into a wall in the past week?

As for the person who asked if I was going to leave after posting, I didn't... as you can probably tell... but I might end up forgetting to get on the computer and post info at some times, because my life is crazy!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by AdminNosy, posted 11-25-2003 9:02 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 8:07 PM ChildOfGod2516 has not yet responded
 Message 168 by mark24, posted 03-01-2004 8:36 PM ChildOfGod2516 has not yet responded
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2004 8:29 AM ChildOfGod2516 has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
78910
11
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019