Originally posted by shaunybaby
As far as I know, yes. What point are you trying to make? It's like you're just making up questions for the sake of it.
Originally posted by Rasobasi420
What do you propose the redshift indicates?
Originally posted by newkids123
Originally posted by Slicky1313
all my life in school, in science class. "we came from apes" "The big bang" but yet, after all this drilling in of knowledge, I find a very much amount of evidence and facts, and find evolution lacking scientific facts, as well as common sense, and is 99.9% fairy tale and .1% facts......
.....Darwin himself said he made the whole thing up and repented on his death bed and became a christian. show me the evidence guys, I dont see any
Evolution taught in school wasn't suppose to be taken seriously
EDITED: By the Society for Prevention of Excessive Quoting
[edit on 26-11-2004 by Gazrok]
Evolutionists and anthropologists claim that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried human bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years. Like the dinosaurs presumably have, there should have been uncountable fossils.
The date range of this period is ambiguous, disputed, and variable according to the region in question. While it is possible to speak of a general 'stone age' period for the whole of humanity, some groups never developed metal-smelting technology, so remained in a 'stone age' until they encountered technologically developed cultures. However, in general, it is believed that this period began somewhere around 3 million years ago, starting with the first hominid tool-making in Africa. Most australopithecines probably did not use stone tools (although they seem to be invented by Paranthropus robustus) but the study of their remains still falls within the remit of archaeologists studying the period. Due to the prevalence of stone artefacts, which are frequently the only remains which still exist, lithic analysis is a major, and specialised, form of archaeological investigation for the period. This involves the measurement of the stone tools to determine their typology, function and the technology involved. This frequently involves an analysis of the lithic reduction of the raw materials, examining how the artefacts were actually made. This can also be examined through experimental archaeology, by attempting to create replica tools. This is done by flintknappers who reduce flintstone to a flint tool.
The strength and durability of bone stems from the unique protein-mineral bond present in skeletal formation. Consequently, changes to skeletal remains, known as bone diagenesis, occur at a substantially slower rate than stages of soft-tissue breakdown. As the protein-mineral bond weakens after death, however, the organic protein begins to leach away, leaving behind only the mineral composition. Unlike soft-tissue decomposition, which is influenced mainly by temperature and oxygen levels, the process of bone breakdown is more highly dependent on soil type and pH, along with presence of groundwater. However, temperature can be a contributing factor, as higher temperature leads the protein in bones to break down more rapidly. If buried, remains decay faster in acidic-based soils rather than alkaline. Bones left in areas of high moisture content also decay at a faster rate. The water leaches out skeletal minerals, which corrodes the bone, and leads to bone disintegration.
Nearly half a million fossils have been discovered and categorized, but not even not even one single set of transitional fossils (like reptiles becoming birds) of one single species of animal or mammal, has ever been found in all of human history. They can not find what has never existed.
An accidental world, with chance as a mechanism for life forms, must fall upward against science’s axiom that out of nothing comes nothing.
The domesticated forms of maize, known as sweet corn and field corn, have been modified by people so much that they can no longer reproduce in the wild. Sheep have been modified to grow fluffy coats, suitable for shearing, from an original wild animal that had only a light, stubbly coat. Wheat and barley grow many edible seeds that are huge in comparison to their ancestors. Wild dogs have been modified to everything from the miniature chihuaha to the great dane. This process is known as "evolution by artificial selection."
Evolutional theory is of no help: it doesn’t explain how matter was formed and thus by extension, it can not explain the origin of life. In fact over time, cells do not gain additional DNA (which, in evolution, must be present for transitional stages), they lose DNA integrity. Each cell is like a carbon copy of the original. With each passing day, the cells are making copies of each other and becoming a little less like the original. The cells are not evolving, they are aging. Natural Selection produces extinction of the species, not a proliferation of it. Cells do not improve or become superior over time, but just the opposite. The Law of Entropy says that cells break down or smooth out over time and lose their cellular integrity. It is the polar opposite of evolution.
I met an old intermediate school classmate far from our hometowns in a big city. I thought, that’s incredible. What are the chances of that? Lot’s of zeros I am sure, but I did not go to this city to meet him. He did not come to the same city to meet me. It was pure coincidence or by mere chance. But the chance did not make me go to this city. I did. But I had already existed before having this chance meeting. I caused myself to do so. Same for him. Chance is a possibility quotient, a mathematical equation. But you have to have numbers to begin with or you can’t even write an equation. Chance is powerless to create or to cause something to happen. That leaves only one possibility. The cause must be from an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. There is no other way in which to explain the reason for all matter…the universe and all life forms.
"Before" is a concept inherently linked to our concept of linear time. That is, we think of ourselves moving on a line from the past to the future and "before" refers to a past-ward direction from a specific point on that line. Given, however, that the direction we label "past" is not necessarily the same direction labeled as "past" in some other part of the universe, The universe does not have an absolute time line, only a local one.
The second key fact that must be understood is that matter and energy are interdependent with spacetime. Without matter and energy, there can be no spacetime. Without spacetime, there is nowhere for matter to be. The reason for this is beyond the scope of this article.
The third key fact is that the current best theory is that the Big Bang was triggered by quantum fluctuations, which are the spontaneous creation and subsequent destruction of quantum level pieces of matter. Again, the reason why this happens is beyond the scope of this article.
Now, given that spacetime is dependent upon the existence of matter and energy, the quantum fluctuation that was responsible for triggering the Big Bang is also responsible for bringing spacetime into existence. More to the point of this discussion and in everyday terms, it brought time into existence. Thus, it is nonsensical to talk of a time "before the Big Bang" because it is equivalent to talking of a time "before time" or asking "What is North of the North Pole ?"
Darwin and most scientists at the time, believed that cells were simple, living organisms, with only a few parts. This was thought to enable easy mutation or change into different kinds of cells. Cells are extremely complex, with over one trillion different functions and processes. More complex than the New York City Metro Transit’s transportation system (including the computers that help run it). Scientists claim they know all of the key elements that were present when life began on earth, but the fact is that when they bring these elements and conditions under a similar environment, (even voltage equal to lightning, so often claimed as the catalyst), they have not once created life or a life form.
Instead, what has been found and widely known as the Cambrian Explosion (of nearly every species) shows life forms showing up, all at once!. It isn’t called an explosion because it happened slowly. It is astonishingly instantaneous; almost like a rapid creation event. It is the glaring lack of evidence and use of words "likely, may have, perhaps, might have, etc. in this THEORY's wording that it is more like scientific hope-so than know-so. It takes an astoningly greater amount of faith to believe we and everything came from nothing or no one.
If evolution is working at the cellular level, why are diseases and cancers still escaliting? I thought there was supposed to be an increasing longevity in species?!
Can intellectuals believe in God? Absolutely! Many intellectuals believe in God. As a matter of fact, your intellect has very little to do with your belief in God. Out of all of the secular professional groups, do you know what professional group has the highest number of believers in God? The astronomers do. Over 90% of the world's great astronomers believe in God. Why? Because they have studied the heavens. It's not a sign of intelligence not to believe in God. If you're intelligent, you have to say, "This must have all been created and organized."
It is also no coincidence that an increasing number of scientists are withdrawing their support of the theory of evolution.
James Darwin, who was only trained in the ministry and stole much of the written material his father had collected, then based everything upon a theory which he knew little about. Even so, he acknowledged life required a Creator (a proper noun in his book) and it was the Origin of the Species, not the Origin of Life he wrote about. Many of the supposed missing-links were from Darwin thugs who had murdered New Zealand aborigines since their skulls fit the pattern they were looking for. The very ones displayed in the Smithsonian Institution are those of the murdered pygmies. How far will scientists go? Apparently far enough to extort evidence to fit a theory, even to the point of killing innocent people. All the missing links are still missing. If they haven’t been found, when and why not?! I believe it is because they are not there.
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Many dinosaur remains are still not completely turned in to rock. More than half of the fossil is still original bone, not stone! Some even have chemicals from the living animals (proteins and amino acids which were not thought to be able to survive millions of years)! Some fish fossils still have a fishy smell when first uncovered. Some of the plants buried during the Flood are not fossilized either. In New Jersey, large amounts of wood from trees that were growing at the same time as dinosaurs can be found in the dirt (Cretaceous clay).
They are preserved, but not turned to stone at all. In England, fragile plant hairs and tiny details of the plant's cells can be seen. The plants are not turned into rock. They are just flattened and blackened. These types of discoveries are not surprising but the rule and not the exception.
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
Permineralization occurs after burial, as the empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater and the minerals precipitate from the groundwater, thus occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil. Some fossils consist only of skeletal remains or teeth; other fossils contain traces of skin, feathers or even soft tissues. This is a form of diagenesis.
Originally posted by Slicky1313
I read in science magaizne of how they took a shell from a snail still alive and carbon dated it and found the shell was 26K years old, even though it wasnt actually that old.