Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke


Here is the relevancy :

originally borntowatch
I guess I can only assume that if you were asking me why God is my default position then you have no idea what and why I believe what I do.

May I ask you why that particular God then ?

My God is called Jehovah, the Father part of the Trinity

This is astounding that you have no concept about the three Abrahamic religions, the differences and similarities.

The fact you argue against what you do not understand surprises me, well maybe not

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke


Here is the relevancy :

originally borntowatch
I guess I can only assume that if you were asking me why God is my default position then you have no idea what and why I believe what I do.

May I ask you why that particular God then ?

My God is called Jehovah, the Father part of the Trinity

This is astounding that you have no concept about the three Abrahamic religions, the differences and similarities.

The fact you argue against what you do not understand surprises me, well maybe not

He understands full well, he's just [SNIP] with you like the rest of the apes on here.

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: borntowatch

Alright, fair enough I suppose.

I'm going to assume that for the most part the links you posted for evidence of creation reflect your views. Give me some time to go through the material, and just ponder in general. I want to form a proper reply. Though honestly I'm not sure it will consist of anything you haven't already read in this thread or others.

At least you may get a better understanding of why I choose to believe what I believe

But as I said, I havnt proofed them for myself, though generally I would think they are reasonable.

originally posted by: Barcs


And I'm supposed to take this site seriously? How many times does it need to be explained that evolution is genetic mutations and natural selection, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOLAR SYSTEM OR BIG BANG OR ABIOGENESIS. It's laughable that you guys keep pushing this lie.

Well I guess thats tough for both of us.
I dont have, nor will I accept evolution on YOUR terms.
Your opinion is not as relevant to me as you would wish it to be.

Are you supposed to take it seriously, I dont mid what you do, I expect you are an adult.

IT HAS NOTHING everything TO DO WITH THE SOLAR SYSTEM the BIG BANG and ABIOGENESIS to me, no matter if you like it or not

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

A "rhino" with armored plates on the top? Oh, sure......not! The guy's argument is completely lame, and nothing but his desperate attempt to pretend there isn't anything to the carving. The plates are clearly part of the animal in that section, NOT part of the background. He's reaching.

As for the footprints, they don't look like what the one site claims at all. Toes are clearly defined in some cases, and clearly human. Besides, I have personally SEEN such a human print, in the same rock bed as confirmed dinosaur tracks, and NOT in the Paluxy River, either. Clear human print, about half a size smaller than my own foot. The land owners in that case did NOT state what they believed about the print, but simply invited us to look at it, and see what we thought it was. Lighter than the prints from heavier animals, but still discernibly human. I have a pretty good BS detector, too, and am sure that they didn't fake it.

People do indeed see what they want to see. Consider, though, that this is true for those believing in evolution, as much as for those who do not. I thought it was factual for some time. Learned it in school, and believed every word. Then I got older, and started reading more on my own, and saw all the holes. Not reading in creationist literature, either, but in things like National Geographic. After a time, I changed my point of view on the topic. I have considered both sides, you see. Think about it. You offered information, and didn't toss out the bias that so often comes into these discussions, so I think you are able to consider both sides as well. Look at both with open eyes. Ask yourself why, if the Paluxy tracks were simply fakes or mistaken identity, people tried to destroy them. If that's all they were, there would be no reason.

We have centuries of historical records that talk about "dragons", and they aren't all winged things as depicted in movies. Many are described in ways that fit quite well with characteristics of known dinosaurs. Coincidence? That would be a LOT of coincidence. I don't buy it. Did you watch the videos? Historical reports of an emperor who had dragons pulling chariots? Official dragon feeders appointed? Stories of various beats being killed, all over the world, that fit descriptions of dinosaurs? There are even modern accounts of people seeing things that look like dinosaurs. There is simply too much for it all to be myth or coincidence.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
sources? I am on a phone or i would do it myself.

Oh nvm wakeupbeer has it covered.

Not even close. Those recordings weren't "covered" at all in that post, or even mentioned. Nothing but lame attempts to pretend armor plated are "leaves".

Echolocation sounds were recorded, that match no known marine mammal, and you can find articles on it if you look. Here's one, and there are others - link

a reply to: kayej1188

Interesting article, to be sure, but not relevant to the track I saw (elsewhere). That one had human toe impressions. Even with the Paluxy tracks, it's still opinion and speculation, either way, for many of them. However, did you watch the videos in the OP? At least track was found with very clear human toes. Plus, such tracks have been found in other places as well.

When you look at ALL of the evidence, you have to consider that the mainstream ideas are wrong. Science has been wrong; it's not unprecedented.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

There is simply too much for it all to be myth or coincidence.

Unfortunately Lady Green Eyes, that statement is where you are wrong.
Some people will never believe that man walked with dragons, some people could never admit that science, especially evolutionary science is flawed.
The reality is simple, if they do, then God may be real.
They cant have that.

a reply to: borntowatch

While you can only believe in God if you convince yourself that man walked with dragons.
And since it's about God and the Bible, it's not Science, it's Religion.

Yes everyone knows everything in the universe evolves but man.

a reply to: roth1

Here you go :

Source

A novel DFNA5 mutation was found in a Dutch family, of which 37 members were examined. A nucleotide substitution was identified in the splice acceptor site of intron 7, leading to skipping of exon 8 in part of the transcripts. The mutation was found in 18 individuals. Sensorineural hearing impairment was non-syndromic and symmetric. In early life, presumably congenitally, hearing impairment amounted to 30 dB in the high frequencies. Progression was most pronounced at 1 kHz (1.8 dB/year). Speech recognition was relatively good with a phoneme score of about 50% at the age of 70. Onset age was 37 years, and recognition deteriorated by 1.3% per year. The recognition score deteriorated by 1.0% per decibel threshold increase from a mean pure-tone average (PTA at 1, 2 and 4 kHz) of 63 dB onwards. Vestibular function was generally normal. The second mutation identified in the DFNA5 gene results in hearing impairment, similar to that in the original DFNA5 family in terms of pure-tone thresholds, but with more favourable speech recognition.

I was being sarcastic lol. Really everything but man?
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: borntowatch

While you can only believe in God if you convince yourself that man walked with dragons.
And since it's about God and the Bible, it's not Science, it's Religion.

Well congratulations for finaly (?) realising the obvious.
Just a little secret I dont want to share with everyone, I am religious, I believe in God

a reply to: borntowatch

So you agree with me that it's dangerous for the Bible itself to build hazardous theories around it ?

a reply to: roth1


At least that allowed me to drop another factual example that will be ignored by everyone but sensible people.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: borntowatch

So you agree with me that it's dangerous for the Bible itself to build hazardous theories around it ?

I dont know to many scholars, if any who deny Jesus was real.
There is evidence of much of the A&NE that is written of in the bible, still being discovered.
Dead Sea scrolls, Babylon, Kings of the regions and ....yaeh well.

There seems to be a lot of truth in the bible many dont dispute

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: borntowatch

So you agree with me that it's dangerous for the Bible itself to build hazardous theories around it ?

I dont know to many scholars, if any who deny Jesus was real.
There is evidence of much of the A&NE that is written of in the bible, still being discovered.
Dead Sea scrolls, Babylon, Kings of the regions and ....yaeh well.

There seems to be a lot of truth in the bible many dont dispute

This is why unbelievers, atheists especially typically don't try and dispute the historicity of the Bible because the events recorded in it have been backed up with archaeology. Their real problem is in the books claims about God. Take God out of the Bible and pervert the creation account to fit in with evolution and you wouldn't see the endless stream of scoffers belittling it like you see in this thread alone.

a reply to: borntowatch

Right, the stories are influenced by the current circumstances as they got written down. The timespan the author chose. Maybe they were imaganing things and exaggerated things, becuse everybody prefers a story with more dramatic elements. Maybe that is why Jesus took a whore as wive. What a lovestory!
I just say the story from Noah and his wives shows up in the Gilgamesh and the bible, because it is an awesome story and one which caried meaning for a long time for the people living in that area, they got flooded regularly in their natural habitat: a hollow between mountains.
Still fiction. Because it was written by someone with an agenda. There is no such thing as "get over yourself" because I need me, otherwise I'd be blind and numb and probably dead. Who ever wrote it, brought in it's own influence. And that on stories retold for a while by different people who added something took something out, made a cover version...
Who ever takes the bible by its word, doesn't know how writing works.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Wrong most archaeologists do not take the bible as truth.
No global flood has been proved.
Noah,s ark didn't happen.
No evidence of the jews in Egypt. ..the list goes on.
Plus jesus has not been proved to have lived at all.