It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Evolution be proven? or is it just a theory/religion?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok first of all. creation has been around since man can remember. legends dating back to about 5,000 years.
legends about a world wide flood date back no earlier than 4000 BC.


I'll grant that. And I'll grant that there may even be truth to some legends. But there's also legends of beasts that are half human and half animal, and there's legends of many Gods ruling the universe. How do those play into creation?



the oldest tree on this earth is no older than 4400 years old.
the oldest desert is no older than 4400 years old.


Things die. Fact of life. I think a 4400 year old tree is pretty special, but it by no means proves anything. Climates can change, and that is something that has been proven as well. Aside from that, if the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old, then why isn't that desert 6K years? It took 1600 years for God to create a desert, when he created everything else in 7 days?



there is not enough salt in the ocean to cover millions or billions of years, nor is there enough sediments at the bottom of the ocean to cover for billions or millions of years. they use pangea to cover this problem. they say that all the sedimants got sucked under the plates when they shift.


And how much salt or sediment should there be in the ocean after millions or billions of years? Is there any chance whatsoever that it could have a) solidified and formed the ocean floor or b) been left on a beach, extending the shorelines?



they used anual ice rings to determine how old the earth is. but the anual rings are not anual rings, you look up "the lost squadron" about planes that got lost in WWII was found under thousands of anual rings, the truth about those is that 5 rings can form in one day.


And your evidence for this is....?



they say that grand canyon formed over many millions of years, when there are no signs of errosion found between the layers and there are petrified trees standing up connecting those layers, and some are found upside down. no tree will stand there for millions of years and wait for layers to form around them. it does not take things very long to petrify.


Ok, no trees will stand there for millions of years, and some are found upside down. Am I the only one who sees something funny about that? And if it does not take things very long to petrify then wouldn't it be able to stand for quite awhile once it's petrified? Besides, can't trees stand for a while even after they've died? I'm sure I've seen quite a few pictures of petrified forests that are still standing.



they say that if stars are billions of light years away, then how can we see them if they are soo far away? well if God did create the universe, im sure that he could make the light already visible. plus no one can measure star distance beyond 20 light years accurately. and its been proven. its been said that 100 light years is max anyone can measure and get an approximate distance. they are but 20 light years for a definite. skinny triangles are hard to make accurate. and no one can be sure as to where exactly earth was a half year ago. and by the way, there enough stars out there, that everyone on earth could own about 7 trillion stars to themselves, and thats just the ones we know about, we dont know about the ones we dont know about.


First off, we can't see the really distant stars with the naked eye; we use extremely sensitive telescopes for that. No one can be sure where the earth was half a year ago? I find that pretty hard to believe. If that's the case, then we can't be sure exactly where it is now--I'm sure technology hasn't jumped that far in 6 months, and we certainly would've recorded it. I'm not even sure what the point of whether we knew where we were or not is... And what relevance does the number we each could own have? I missed that...



people think they have seen stars form. actually no one has. the only one they have seen is the one is crab nebula. and all they see there is a spot getting brighter. that does not prove a star forming. it could be that the dust it clearing and there is a star behind it.


Yeah, it could be that. It could be that it is a star forming. One extra possibility does not in itself make another possibility wrong. It could also be something that no one has ever come across before.



the moon is leaving us. of you go back 150 million years approx. the moon would be almost touching the earth. and everything on earth would be covered with water, evolutionist say that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. and if you go back millions of years, the earth would have been spinning so fast that the winds would be over 500 miles and hour due to the corriolis effect, not to mention that the earth itself would be spinning so fast that things might begin to fly off it.


Again, where are you getting this information? Especially about the speed the earth was spinning. That's something I've never heard anyone say, from a creationist argument or a scientific argument.



galaxies lose their spiral shape over time. if the universe is billions of years old, why do we still have galaxies? it would take a galaxy about 10,000 years to totally lose its spiral shape. or why havent any galaxies lost their spiral shape, or even close to losing it.


Not all galaxies are spirals for one. There's quite a few that have entirely different shapes. And how are you making your calculation that it would take 10K years for them to lose their shape?



the geologic collumn does not exist. no one knows how old the layers are. and you cant date the fossils by the layers its found in and you cant date the layers by what fossils are found.


I quote Nygdan for my response:


This is completely incorrect. It, in fact, exists in several places.
link


1. the Bonaparte Basin of Australia
2. the Williston Basin of North Dakota


Are two of the places it exists.




I dont know if I told you this before, but human footprints has been found with dinosaur tracks.


No, you didn't mention that. Human footprints have also been found with tire tracks, bird tracks, cat and dog tracks. That doesn't mean they were walking there at the same time though.



coal supposedly formed millions of years ago, but human artifacts are found in coal.. interesting...


Dirt by itself is also "supposedly" millions of years old as well, and you can find human artifacts in it too. That doesn't mean the artifacts were made at the same time.



I just proved over half of evolution wrong. everything I have just told you implies that the earth is young and less than 10,000 years


No, you didn't, and no, it doesn't. All you proved and implied is that you would rather spend your time reading the Bible and listening to every theory that supports it than trying to figure out what is the basis for the evidence that people have found.



if you add up all the dates in the bible, you get about 6,000 years ago. and if the flood was about 4400 years ago. it all makes sense.


4400 years ago would be about 2400 BC, 2000 years after the legends you spoke of earlier. In fact, those legends you mentioned earlier about the flood would've been around at the time the earth and man was being created.



evolution needs a bunch of time for things to happen,

example: according to evolution, a frog can change to a prince over billions of years. if this change happens instantly its called a fairytail. evolution needs time for things to happen, things that we cannot prove.


And?




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
ok here is what I believe. I believe that the bible was written by God through man. I believe that about 6,000 years ago God made the universe, and 4400 years ago he sent a flood that destroyed the earth and rearranged it quite a bit. 2000 years ago jesus came and now we are here in the year 2005. so technically jesus came more around 2005 years ago. ok




legends about a world wide flood date back no earlier than 4000 BC.

I meant 4000 years ago. not 4000 BC.




Things die. Fact of life. I think a 4400 year old tree is pretty special, but it by no means proves anything. Climates can change, and that is something that has been proven as well. Aside from that, if the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old, then why isn't that desert 6K years? It took 1600 years for God to create a desert, when he created everything else in 7 days?


well like I said, there was a flood and a flood would have destroyed a desert. if water covered the face of the earth for more than a year, im pretty sure that a desert wouldnt be there anymore. it didnt take him any time to make a desert, the desert is just that old. God can do whatever he wants, he told noah to build a boat instead of performing a miracle and killing all the bad people. by building a boat people would have a warning. he gave them time to think about not being so wicked.
and you are right, the climate can change and it has, thats why there are no more dinosaurs. and actually dinosaurs used to be called dragons. and there are many legends of man killing dragons. and there are even pictures such as hyrogliphics (spelling is probably wrong). the bible says that there was water above the atmosphere (firmament). it was probably water in the form of ice suspended by the magnetic field by what is called the meissner effect.
this would produce hyperbarric conditions and that is how we got dragons. a dragon is just a gigantic reptile.
if there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere, that produced hyperbarric conditions, that would explain a lot of the large fossils we find. we find large human bones, and skeletons. some are found that are over 10 foot tall. but no one has ever told you about that. ill bet.
ok enough on this one ask me if you wanna know more about this one.






And how much salt or sediment should there be in the ocean after millions or billions of years? Is there any chance whatsoever that it could have a) solidified and formed the ocean floor or b) been left on a beach, extending the shorelines?


well if it extended the shorelines that would be awesome, because as far as I know, the shore lines are becoming smaller and smaller as the waves drag sand out into the ocean.




they used anual ice rings to determine how old the earth is. but the anual rings are not anual rings, you look up "the lost squadron" about planes that got lost in WWII was found under thousands of anual rings, the truth about those is that 5 rings can form in one day.


look up the lost squadron and find out how far down they were, I think it was a mile and a half deep. but thousands of rings we drilled through to get to them. what im saying about this is, I learned back in high school which was not too long ago. im only 18. I learned that one anual ring meant one year. but the fact is, that many rings can form in one day.




Ok, no trees will stand there for millions of years, and some are found upside down. Am I the only one who sees something funny about that? And if it does not take things very long to petrify then wouldn't it be able to stand for quite awhile once it's petrified? Besides, can't trees stand for a while even after they've died? I'm sure I've seen quite a few pictures of petrified forests that are still standing.


ok trees do not grow upsidedown. you just stuck your foot in your mouth. a good explaination for this is that there was a flood and during that time the sticks(trees) got mixed in with the mud(layers). how does a tree become upsidedown over millions of years? thats a problem if evolution was true.




First off, we can't see the really distant stars with the naked eye; we use extremely sensitive telescopes for that. No one can be sure where the earth was half a year ago? I find that pretty hard to believe. If that's the case, then we can't be sure exactly where it is now--I'm sure technology hasn't jumped that far in 6 months, and we certainly would've recorded it. I'm not even sure what the point of whether we knew where we were or not is... And what relevance does the number we each could own have? I missed that...


in order to get a wider base to make a bigger triangle to measure star distance, they use earths orbit. thats where is comes into play. and the number of stars shows that it was all created at the same time. because if the universe was billions of years old, im sure that there would be many more supernova rings out there. and more blown up stars.




Again, where are you getting this information? Especially about the speed the earth was spinning. That's something I've never heard anyone say, from a creationist argument or a scientific argument.


well look that up. last time I checked the earth was spinning at about 6,000 miles per hour at the equator. everyone knows that the earth is slowing down. thats why we have leap year and leap second. I learned this when i was like 12.




Not all galaxies are spirals for one. There's quite a few that have entirely different shapes. And how are you making your calculation that it would take 10K years for them to lose their shape?


quite right not all galaxies are spiral shped, but a lot of them are. i
it has been calculated it would take about 10,000 years to lose spiral shape. also comets only last about 10,000 years, that has also been calculated. if the universe is billions of years old why are there still comets?

the geologic collumn does not exist. you just find fossils in the order you would like them to be found. that does not prove anything.




No, you didn't mention that. Human footprints have also been found with tire tracks, bird tracks, cat and dog tracks. That doesn't mean they were walking there at the same time though.


well this does not mean they were walking at the same exact time. but what about when they find a human footprint inside a dinosaur print. that means it was pretty much within the same couple months. this means that dinosaurs and humans must have been here at the same time. dinosaurs and human bones have been found in the same layer(s), this again is a problem to the evolution theory.

may I point out that one of these theories is indeed wrong.

anyways...

you were saying...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I do not believe you understand how complex the Earth really is. And what makes Christianity right? How about the other religions? The Native Americans or the Aztecs, Mayans? Were their religions wrong? Christianity has changed so much over the years. The bible has been changed and changed ever since it was first written. Parts have been left out, added in. It is a book written with the understanding of the day.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Just thought I'd drop in and point out the fundamental flaw with this thread.


Since when was theory/religion interchangable?

Why even argue with some one who gets all their information from Kent Hovind of all people.

The earth is not 6-10,000 years old.

That is insane.

I believe it was illustrated perfectly in last weeks family guy.

Click to see full size.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
hahahahaahahahahahaa



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
well like I said, there was a flood

There is absoltely no evidence for a global flood. And if anything the evidence that is had contradicts the occurance of a global flood, besides there not being enough water on the planet for it.

if there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere, that produced hyperbarric conditions, that would explain a lot of the large fossils we find.

The 'water canopy' idea has been completely discredited and there was never any reason to ever accept it. Amoung other things, it'd've created unbearable pressures at surface level. And hyperbaric conditions wouldn't explain anything. There are large fossils because there were large organisms, and at the same time, under these 'hyperbaric conditions' there were small animals. The whole thing is bunkum.

because as far as I know, the shore lines are becoming smaller and smaller as the waves drag sand out into the ocean.

This is incorrect. In some places the oceans and seas wear away the beaches, and in other places they dump sand and add to the shores. Ostia in italy used to be coastal, its not anymore. Other places in greece were once more coastal and are now further inland.


I learned back in high school which was not too long ago. im only 18. I learned that one anual ring meant one year. but the fact is, that many rings can form in one day.

The thing is, if you incorrectly use the science, like creationists do with the 'lost squadron' example, then ofcourse you get erroneous answers.

a good explaination for this is that there was a flood and during that time the sticks(trees) got mixed in with the mud(layers).

You do understand that that has nothing to do with evolution and that local floods that do this occur all the time, no?

how does a tree become upsidedown over millions of years?

It doesn't. No scientists are saying it does.

thats a problem if evolution was true

How?

because if the universe was billions of years old, im sure that there would be many more supernova rings out there. and more blown up stars.

Your 'being sure of it' is completely meaningless, just as my 'being sure of it' would be.

everyone knows that the earth is slowing down. thats why we have leap year and leap second. I learned this when i was like 12.



That is not why there are leap years, at all.

also comets only last about 10,000 years, that has also been calculated.

Who calculated this and how?

if the universe is billions of years old why are there still comets?

You don't think its possible for comets to form? That they could've only been formed, when, in the period known as inflation?

but what about when they find a human footprint inside a dinosaur print. that means it was pretty much within the same couple months.

No one has found any human prints next to dino prints. Outside frauds, like a paluxy.

. dinosaurs and human bones have been found in the same layer(s)

No, they have not. At least not outside of a burial, and I am not familiar with any instances like that.

If the supposed co-existence of man and dino in the fossil record refutes evolution, and its untrue, then why doesn't the segregation of faunas into comletely different strata prove evolution? If man and dino in one layer would disprove it, then why doesn't the fact that we don't find lots of advanced mammals in the carboniferous, nor any dinosaurs in the mississipian, prove evolution? IE, why is the 'standard of proof' biased against evolution here?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
As usual, my post was completely ignored by the creationist who started the thread, not even argued against, so I wonder at the wisdom of taking the time to type this.

Nevertheless, here goes.

Creationists keep asking "Where's the proof? Where can it be seen?"

Let's just, for one brief moment, completely ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence from biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology to support evolution, and simply go with what has occurred within the span of one human life.

Penicillin was put into use in 1943. By 1947, the first resistant strains were discovered.

Methicillin was developed in the 1960's. By 1980, resistant strains were found all over the place.

Vancomycin was the next big hitter, and as of 2002, resistant strains have been found.

"Oh, but that's just germs, they don't count, right?"
Fine. Let's examine the animal kingdom.

Peter and Rosemary Grant, have spent two decades working with Galapagos finches, and have developed different breeds with differing beak sizes.

William R. Rice and George W. Salt, through 35 generations of fruit flies starting from an unsplit lineage, have bred two distinct species out of what was once one.

DDT, developed in 1939, has, by 1990, resulted in more than 500 species (including 114 kinds of mosquitos) who are immune or resistant to at least one pesticide.

Things adapt in order to survive long enough to procreate. Period.

"But the Bible says evolution isn't real!"
Bull F---ing S--t.
There isn't one single passage in the Bible that refutes evolution, or states that God did not account for it in creating the Earth. In fact, Papal Decree in the Roman Catholic Church (quite possibly one of the strictest enforcers of tradition) has been that the two are quite compatible, on a number of occasions.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   


Peter and Rosemary Grant, have spent two decades working with Galapagos finches, and have developed different breeds with differing beak sizes.


they are all finches, that does not prove evolution at all.




"But the Bible says evolution isn't real!"


it doesnt say that God used evolution, if God had to use evolution, he is pretty dumb and cant get it right the first time. and if he used evolution, that means that it took millions of years of death to finally get man. I believe that the bible said that he created man in his image on the sixth day. not evolution.




There isn't one single passage in the Bible that refutes evolution, or states that God did not account for it in creating the Earth. In fact, Papal Decree in the Roman Catholic Church (quite possibly one of the strictest enforcers of tradition) has been that the two are quite compatible, on a number of occasions.


well if you know anything about the catholic church, their translation of the bible comes from the same place all the other translations except for the king james bible. the king james bible was translated seperately. all the others was translated from the alexandrians, who took out and added what they wanted. shows how much catholics know about their own religion.


Evolution and Creation are polar opposites. they are the exact opposite


oh and by the way. everything that Dr hovind talks about, is not by his own knowledge, he uses other peoples studies and results, theories (and admits to them not being fact, just theory) nothing is original with him. he always refers to someone else. so its not all his own thing. and I have taken time to research over half of the people he refers to, and have also found other people stating the same thing or close to it.




"Oh, but that's just germs, they don't count, right?"


well if it didnt turn into a different organism, than evolution was never proven there.




That is not why there are leap years, at all.



ok then why do we? you are telling me that the earth is not slowing down, or loosing speed in its rotation? I think you are wrong there...




No one has found any human prints next to dino prints. Outside frauds, like a paluxy.


uh yeah they did, and even scientists are starting to speculate that dinosaurs and man co-existed. and where they found these prints, they had a park made, and proved that they were made by humans feet because of the compression in the limestone. and this was found under ripped up, undisturbed limestone. so there is no way for someone to have carved these into the limestone.

and about the trees upsidedown in connecting the layers of strata, how does this happen? and how do you get so many? trees do not grow upsidedown. and how did they get there like that? trees also do not petrify by use of air, if exposed to oxygen, they oxidize, causing them to rot. so they cannot petrify and stand there for millions of years and wait for layers to form around them. there is no way that an evolutionist can give a logical explanation for this.



about the other religions, someone has to be wrong and someone has to be right. why dont you defend the other religions? unless you know of course that they are wrong.




William R. Rice and George W. Salt, through 35 generations of fruit flies starting from an unsplit lineage, have bred two distinct species out of what was once one.


its still a fruitfly isnt it? or rather, arent they? there is something called a genepool some parts of the genepool you get and thge others you dont get. if its still a fruitfly, the bible agrees with that. the bible says that they will bring forth after their kind, not species. so if you have a fruitfly and a housefly, they both are the same kind of bug just different species. again that does not prove evolution.




DDT, developed in 1939, has, by 1990, resulted in more than 500 species (including 114 kinds of mosquitos) who are immune or resistant to at least one pesticide.


like a said before, the genepool. they found people that were resistant to penicillin before it was even introduced to the public. how do you explain that? its all part of the gene pool as to somethings that can be resisted. if you spray a bug with a pesticide, it may be resistant, but there is a limit. it will never become resistant to Gasoline. so again, evolution was not present.





The earth is not 6-10,000 years old.


ok smart one, then how old is it? I know its less than 10,000 im saying its more around 6,000. where did matter come from, did it always exist? or was it created? because since everything is stuck in time (except for God) then it has to have a beginning. where did it come from?
what caused the big bang?
if all the matter in the universe was gathered in one area at one time, that would be a black whole(if light can be efffected by gravity, know one knows if it can, no one knows if like has mass)
but lets just say that it can. nothing could escape its gravity. now even an explosion. all the matter in the universe is a lot. and you can only pack it so far.

yes the evolution theory is a theory, but when one believes in it, it becomes their religion.





Things adapt in order to survive long enough to procreate. Period.


yeah, what kind of adaptations are you talking about. I can adapt to eating less, ill only get skinny or die. and thats about it. my behavior might change, but I will wont grow a tail, or grow anymore limbs, I will still be a human, and my decendants would still be human in the same environment, if I had to adapt to survive by swinging from trees. I would still look like tarzan, I would never grow a thumb on my foot.

evolution cannot be proven, and how come it can only happen once, long ago and far away? why doesnt it happen how days? how come birds dont hatch out of reptile eggs once in a blue moon?

its a religion



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Answer my statement!!!!!! If evolution is wrong then why is Christianity right? Are other religions wrong? It is not just Christianity and evolution. There are many other religions that do not agree with either.

[edit on 6/23/05 by jetsetter]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expert999uh yeah they did, and even scientists are starting to speculate that dinosaurs and man co-existed.



Once again, this is total insanity.

Show some links that don't use the bible as proof.

There are no scientists speculating about this. The case has been closed.

Creationists speculate about this, but it's hard to argue with people who don't think rationally.


Kent Hovind is not a scientist. He is a fraudelent religious con-artist.


Oh yeah, he also doesn't pay taxes.

www.libertypost.org...



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
If dinos and man existed at the same time there would be no humans left. Some dinos were very good hunters.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   


Kent Hovind is not a scientist. He is a fraudelent religious con-artist.


so what. dont be jeaious. he doesnt work for anyone. his business survives off of donations.
how is he a con-artist? he can prove you wrong better than I can.
and ill bet you that, ill be in the same category as him being that I believe that same thing and keep shoving facts in your face. facts that you dont know how to answer to, example: trees connecting layers, petrified and some upsidedown.

I have an answer, but you dont.

how about you tell me what the other religions teach about the origin of the earth and universe. you tell me how they are right or wrong. I believe in the bible because it has not been proven wrong and will never be proven wrong.

you can continue to believe in what you want. even I know that the only reason you believe in it, is because you hope that its true. and since you believe in evolution does not make it a fact. it has now become your religion.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
You have yet to give us one fact other than you belief in creationism and your disdain for those who disagree with you.


I dare you to show some evidence that scientists are considering the idea that dinos and humans lived together.

You are posting blatant lies. The burden of proof is on you.

There is no credible evidence for the absurdities you post.

If you bothered to research anything you talked about you would know this.

Kent Hovind runs a theme park and sells creationist materials, that is hardly donation run. A theme park for Jebus' sake!!

So please, attack my ideas, call them crazy and religous but keep the personal attacks to yourself.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
they are all finches, that does not prove evolution at all.


It proves it quite perfectly. It proves that a species will evolve over time. That's all that's needed.



it doesnt say that God used evolution, if God had to use evolution, he is pretty dumb and cant get it right the first time.


That's an awfully bold statement to be making. Who are you to know God didn't want to use evolution? How can you know that it isn't what God intended to do in the first place? Even if this rock is only 6K-10K years old, how do you know God didn't put everything on here to start out as it did and evolve from that point on? Nice to know we've got someone here on the boards who's on a direct line and knows everything the big guy has in mind




and if he used evolution, that means that it took millions of years of death to finally get man. I believe that the bible said that he created man in his image on the sixth day. not evolution.


Yes, it does say that. I believe it's already been pointed out though that a day does not have to be taken literally and may not have meant a 24 hour time period.



well if you know anything about the catholic church, their translation of the bible comes from the same place all the other translations except for the king james bible. the king james bible was translated seperately. all the others was translated from the alexandrians, who took out and added what they wanted. shows how much catholics know about their own religion.


Because the KJ version was translated seperately, it's correct? Hmmm....I find it hard to believe that Arabians and Hebrews were saying "Thou shalt do..." and "Thee hath..." Perhaps the Catholics have the right idea in regards to the translation of the bible, or at least a closer one than any other major version.



Evolution and Creation are polar opposites. they are the exact opposite


No, they don't have to be. They can be complimentary. You can sit there and think everything was created in 144 hours, but that it still is able to change.

(I have nothing to say--one way or another--in regards to Dr Hovind at the moment, so that much is omitted).



well if it didnt turn into a different organism, than evolution was never proven there.


Something does not have to go from being a bacterium to being a cheetah in order to prove evolution. All that's needed is for it to show that, over generations, a species has adapted to it's environment. That's it.



ok then why do we? you are telling me that the earth is not slowing down, or loosing speed in its rotation? I think you are wrong there...


Regardless of whether the earth is slowing down or not, the reason we have leap years is because the moron who parceled out what portion of the day the hour would be didn't carry a one. The math is off of the "standard" calendar. That's why we have leap years, leap seconds, etc.



uh yeah they did, and even scientists are starting to speculate that dinosaurs and man co-existed. and where they found these prints, they had a park made, and proved that they were made by humans feet because of the compression in the limestone. and this was found under ripped up, undisturbed limestone. so there is no way for someone to have carved these into the limestone.


First off, who are these scientists? Are they your average run-of-the-mill scientists, or were they already followers of YEC? And where exactly were these prints found? Links? Pictures? I'd like more info.



and about the trees upsidedown in connecting the layers of strata, how does this happen? and how do you get so many? trees do not grow upsidedown. and how did they get there like that? trees also do not petrify by use of air, if exposed to oxygen, they oxidize, causing them to rot. so they cannot petrify and stand there for millions of years and wait for layers to form around them. there is no way that an evolutionist can give a logical explanation for this.


Apparently you missed Nygdan's response to this. Trees can get caught up in numerous floods that happen throughout the course of an average year. Nothing special. And if trees cannot petrify while they're exposed to air, then how do you explain the petrified forests?



about the other religions, someone has to be wrong and someone has to be right. why dont you defend the other religions? unless you know of course that they are wrong.


Lack of defence for the other religions does not in any way show a lack of belief or faith in them, on my part at least. I personally thought some of us were defending them in a way, by trying to find out why they have to be wrong in relation to Christianity. And yes, someone does have to be wrong, and someone has to be right. That doesn't mean that any of us posting here are right though, not me, not you, not Nygdan, not Simon Gray. At least not when it comes to religion anyways.



its still a fruitfly isnt it? or rather, arent they? there is something called a genepool some parts of the genepool you get and thge others you dont get. if its still a fruitfly, the bible agrees with that. the bible says that they will bring forth after their kind, not species. so if you have a fruitfly and a housefly, they both are the same kind of bug just different species. again that does not prove evolution.


So what is the definition for "kind"? Technically you can say that all animals are the same "kind", you can say anything that flies is the same "kind" of animal. It all depends on how you classify things. Again though, that does prove evolution, because a species adapted. Are you expecting to see some outrageous sci-fi monsters coming out of this or what? The theory isn't talking about drastic changes, just minor adaptations over time.




like a said before, the genepool. they found people that were resistant to penicillin before it was even introduced to the public. how do you explain that? its all part of the gene pool as to somethings that can be resisted. if you spray a bug with a pesticide, it may be resistant, but there is a limit. it will never become resistant to Gasoline. so again, evolution was not present.


It was the same "kind" of infections that were previously vulnerable to the various antibiotics that were all of a sudden now immune. And how do you know something will never become resistant to gasoline? Have you been experimenting with gasoline and various animals for millions of years to determine this? I'd like to see your research notes.




ok smart one, then how old is it? I know its less than 10,000 im saying its more around 6,000. where did matter come from, did it always exist? or was it created? because since everything is stuck in time (except for God) then it has to have a beginning. where did it come from?
what caused the big bang?


And how do you know it's less than 10,000 years old? What do you have to back it up? At least there's quite a few theories and formula to back up the theories of the universe being older. As far as everything needing a beginning, why? Does it need to have an end as well? Or are those just limitations we put on the universe because we humans are too small to grasp such concepts?

if all the matter in the universe was gathered in one area at one time, that would be a black whole(if light can be efffected by gravity, know one knows if it can, no one knows if like has mass)
but lets just say that it can. nothing could escape its gravity. now even an explosion. all the matter in the universe is a lot. and you can only pack it so far.


To the best of my knowledge, no one knows why it blew up. Maybe God came along and pulled the trigger? I don't know, I sure's to hell don't claim to know.



yes the evolution theory is a theory, but when one believes in it, it becomes their religion.


Okay, so if I believe in what Bush or Clinton say, then I'm following their religion? Nazism is a religion and not a political belief? If I believe that professional wrestling is real, is that now my religion?



yeah, what kind of adaptations are you talking about. I can adapt to eating less, ill only get skinny or die. and thats about it. my behavior might change, but I will wont grow a tail, or grow anymore limbs, I will still be a human, and my decendants would still be human in the same environment, if I had to adapt to survive by swinging from trees. I would still look like tarzan, I would never grow a thumb on my foot.


Evolution of that sort is a lot more complex than that. It's millions of years, different traits being more attractive than others and proliferating through reproduction, or being less desirable and not being passed along. It comes from an actual need to survive. You don't need a tail to survive, even living in the jungle. You'd get along just as well as you are, although your feet may, several millenia down the road, be a lot more flexible than they are right now.



evolution cannot be proven, and how come it can only happen once, long ago and far away? why doesnt it happen how days? how come birds dont hatch out of reptile eggs once in a blue moon?

its a religion


Creation cannot be proven, and how come it only happened once, long ago and far away? Why doesn't God decide to create a new species every day, just to see how the rest of his creation could handle it?

Again, it's not a religion, no more so than following any belief system makes that belief a religion. Do you follow the religion of Algebra? How about the teachings of Planck, the great electromagnetic prophet? Do you pray at the altar of Dylan, whose beliefs helped shaped the culture of an era? "Knockin on Heaven's Door" is no more a Psalm than Origin of Species is a gospel.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999



Kent Hovind is not a scientist. He is a fraudelent religious con-artist.


so what. dont be jeaious. he doesnt work for anyone. his business survives off of donations.
how is he a con-artist? he can prove you wrong better than I can.
and ill bet you that, ill be in the same category as him being that I believe that same thing and keep shoving facts in your face. facts that you dont know how to answer to, example: trees connecting layers, petrified and some upsidedown.

I have an answer, but you dont.

how about you tell me what the other religions teach about the origin of the earth and universe. you tell me how they are right or wrong. I believe in the bible because it has not been proven wrong and will never be proven wrong.

you can continue to believe in what you want. even I know that the only reason you believe in it, is because you hope that its true. and since you believe in evolution does not make it a fact. it has now become your religion.


The problem is that it has not been proven right either. Some native American beliefs say that we rose up from the Earth. Is it wrong?



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
If all these religions have different teachings than Christianity does it mean that they are all wrong?

Baha'i Faith
Buddhism
Confucianism
Hinduism
Jainism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Vodun (Voodoo)
Asatru (Norse Paganism) *
Druidism
Goddess Worship
Wicca
Witchcraft
Caodaism
Damanhur Community
Druse
Eckankar
Elian Gonzalez religious movement
Gnosticism
Gypsies
Hare Krishna - ISKCON
Lukumi
Macumba
Mowahhidoon
Native American Spirituality
New Age (a.k.a. Self-spirituality, New Spirituality, etc.)
Osho ® (followers of Rajneesh)
Rom, Roma, Romani, Rroma, (a.k.a. Gypsies)
Santeria Elian Gonzalez religious movement
Satanism; The Church of Satan
Scientology
Thelema
Unitarian-Universalism
The Creativity Movement (formerly called World Church of the Creator
Zoroastrianism



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
3. Chemical Evolution – the forming of all the elements (religious) fusion works, but you cant fuse past iron

You're just a christian fundamentalist troll that is incapable of independent thought outside your endoctrination scheme (the bible). By the way, you can fuse way past iron but then the reaction is endothermic, consumes energy. Noone by the way claims that the heavier elements are formed by fusion, except indirectly by neutron absorption with the neutrons coming from fusion reactions.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I'm through with this thread.

Life is too short to waste it trying to argue science and religion with someone who is educated in neither.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
The only "evolution" that may or may not be able to be proved is that of just about everting on Earth, EXCEPT man. No one has yet to explain the "missing link" of mankind. Or in laymans terms how Neandertal man jumped to Cro-Magdon man.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GREGNOW
EXCEPT man. No one has yet to explain the "missing link" of mankind. Or in laymans terms how Neandertal man jumped to Cro-Magdon man.

You mean Cro Magnon man and there was no such jump. The Neanderthal branch was a dead end.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join