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.

 

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by muggl3z
 



The biggest problem in this country is ignorance, complete absence of information.


Actually, I am going to have to disagree with you...I think there is a problem with too much information...Its very difficult to ascertain, at times, what is truth and what is false.

While I am not religious (agnostic, thanks) I cant say I am 100% on board with macro evolution either..missing links in just about every species chain and there is no real evidence saying human evolved from monkeys..not saying it isnt so..just saying their is a lack of evidence...

and then there is the question sof self awareness..or conscience..wher did we get it? a very unique trait to humans




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 

...if a group of scientists coin the term scientific creationism and define it, then that's good enough for me. Just because you say it doesn't exist, does not make it so.
But its not just me, although with a BA, 2 x BSc & an MSc, I do feel qualified in my own right.

science
• noun 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.
www.askoxford.com...

scientific method –noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Origin: 1850–55
Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com...

logic
• noun 1 reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. 2 the ability to reason correctly.
www.askoxford.com...
1) Since you think creationism "more logical", please explain, using logic, how interpretations of evidence critical of evolutionary theory are evidence for creationism. If you can reason that, if something is not an apple, it must be an orange:
2) please explain how the scientific method was used to validate the premiss that a god created life.
This is an exercise in logic. If step 1 cannot be accomplished, then step 2 may not rely on arguments against evolution as validation. This is how science works.
You may then wish to look up the word "pseudoscience" for an explanation as to why creationism doesn't get published in objective scientific journals.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
You guys do realize that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive and you can believe in one without denying the other?


Sorry, but that's not true. If you're a literalist, you have to believe in things that are simply incompatible with out current understanding of the world. A young Earth and talking snakes do not fit into our paradigm. However, what you said does apply if you believe religious texts are metaphorical in nature.


They both require a good amount of faith and they both explain different things. Religion will never tell us how a virus works but science can't tell us where all of the universe came from and why it all works so well.


That's absurd, man. One requires that you believe in something that cannot be detected by the five senses and for which there is nothing to prove its validity, and the other gives you cold hard facts with provable and repeatable experiments, measurements, etc. Your computer works because of science. And we do have a theory that tells us where the universe came from - it's called the Big Bang.


You reach a point, in science, where you can't explain anymore, where you realize everything is so amazing, that perhaps an equally amazing explanation is the right one.

You can't tell me it doesn't take a lot of faith to buy into membrane or string theory.


That is true. Believe it or not, some of the world's best scientists claim that we know nothing, and that we will most likely not know everything. In fact, here's a nice little quote from Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics. Here, he is describing his education and what he gained at Cornell:

"It didn’t work out quite as I had anticipated. I didn’t know enough to participate in the exciting physics research that was going on at Cornell. I took German, in which the main thing I learned was that I have no head for foreign languages. My courses in philosophy left me puzzled about how ideas of Plato and Descartes that seemed to me absurd could have been so influential. I did not become wise."

Now go compare that to your average Bible thumper who has it all figured out. And then they have the nerve to say that science is full of arrogant know-it-alls.

P.S.

Despite what you may read in pop sci magazines and books, real world physicists do not care much for the theory, nor do they accept it as valid since it is untestable. To physicists, TOE's (theory of everything) are a dime a dozen.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
For some reason I cant get page 9 of this thread to load, so if anyone replied to me on it, I'm sorry, I cant read you.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
BunkenDrum this was the only reply to you on page 9:


Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Exactly. There are no scientific proofs for either side because neither evolution nor creation can be observed, or repeated in controlled experiments.

There are evidences, and there are interpretations and explanations for the evidences.

The question for the informed observer becomes, which interpretations and explanations are more reasonable and logical.

The fact that I believe that the scientific creationism model is more logical and reasonable is irrelevant, unless you are one of my fans and hang on my every word.


So what I am saying is that people should look at the creationist interpretation and explanation of the same evidence before jumping on the evolutionist band wagon and using insults aimed at God, Christians, creationists, and the bible to support their arguments.


There is no need to insult people's beliefs and as some have stated, they believe in God AND evolution, they are not mutually exclusive.

One form of religion that is incompatible with science is the form called "Young Earth Creationism" and the scientist Dr Hazen also does not insult those with such beliefs. He gives people the freedom to believe as they choose, but only asks that their children at least be taught and understand why scientists take the position they that young earth creationism is in direct contradiction to the scientific method. He doesn't even ask you to believe in the scientific method, only to understand what it is and why scientists believe in it.

I think most people could learn something about the topics being discussed in this thread, from watching this excerpt from one of his lectures:

(click to open player in new window)

Dr Hazen also explains why "creation science" is not science and reads the supreme court ruling that says so and forbids teaching this in public schools because it's religion, not science.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



In other words, survival and adaptation is encoded into DNA, which is why we build up immunities and why bodybuilders develop large muscles and can lift heavier things.....


I fear that the thinking displayed here is too narrow. AND, comparing bodybuilding is really a nonsequitor.

Not to attempt to squash a believer's view, but the problem that is inherent in these discussions is a lack of comprehension of the amount of TIME involved.

Humans will not be able to directly observe the MAJOR tenets of evolutionary processes at work, because of the limitations of the Human lifespan. The results of a huge shift in characteristics of a particular species, even leading to the emergence of a NEW species in cases, have to be looked at in retrospect.

Darwin, and his observations of the isolated species on the Galapagos Islands provided the catalyst for the first examination and beginnings of understanding of the forces at work.

Example: A bird. A population of birds isolated after being blown or otherwise diverted to a new ecosystem. Their normal and ADAPTED food sources are not available. In their old habitat, food was plentiful, easy to get to. Here, the food requires a longer beak, let's say.

SOME individuals who happen to already have a slightly longer beak survive to breed, and THEIR offspring inherit the same features. Over and over and over again, through generations.

Eventually, the bird population on the Galapagos now is, according to taxonomic classification standards, a NEW and distinvt species, since they have diverged enough from their 'cousins' back on the mainland.

Give this system, uninterrupted, and the isolated birds stay as they are, untiland UNLESS there is a new pressure to change, because of the environment.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


With all your degrees, why do you find the term scientific creationism so difficult to accept?

I think you are nit picking too much. Scientific Creationism is a valid field of scientific study and it is learned and practiced by creation scientists whether you believe it or not.

The term refers to scientists who use scientific methods (just like you defined for me) and apply those scientific methods to examine and interpret data, and demonstrate how their findings validates their hypothesis which is:

"In the beginning GOD created......."





[edit on 15/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by John Matrix
 



In other words, survival and adaptation is encoded into DNA, which is why we build up immunities and why bodybuilders develop large muscles and can lift heavier things.....


I fear that the thinking displayed here is too narrow. AND, comparing bodybuilding is really a nonsequitor.


Sorry, I wanted to make my point "simple stupid" so everyone would get it.

Unfortunately you didn't get it.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by John Matrix
 



In other words, survival and adaptation is encoded into DNA, which is why we build up immunities and why bodybuilders develop large muscles and can lift heavier things.....


Humans will not be able to directly observe the MAJOR tenets of evolutionary processes at work, because of the limitations of the Human lifespan.


Which is why evolution is a faith. You have faith in natural processes working over eons of time to come up with mutations, adaptation, etc. to produce new species.

It takes a lot of faith to hold to a theory that no one was around to see going on for millions of years, or no one can live long enough to prove one way or another.



Darwin, and his observations of the isolated species on the Galapagos Islands provided the catalyst for the first examination and beginnings of understanding of the forces at work.

Example: A bird. A population of birds isolated after being blown or otherwise diverted to a new ecosystem. Their normal and ADAPTED food sources are not available. In their old habitat, food was plentiful, easy to get to. Here, the food requires a longer beak, let's say.

SOME individuals who happen to already have a slightly longer beak survive to breed, and THEIR offspring inherit the same features. Over and over and over again, through generations.

Eventually, the bird population on the Galapagos now is, according to taxonomic classification standards, a NEW and distinvt species, since they have diverged enough from their 'cousins' back on the mainland.

Give this system, uninterrupted, and the isolated birds stay as they are, untiland UNLESS there is a new pressure to change, because of the environment.



But it's still a bird.


[edit on 15/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



But it's still a bird.


Yes.

So is an Ostrich, technically, still a bird.

There is substantial evidence to show the similarities in basic fundamentals between feathers and scales. The components that make up the two coverings are very similar.

Same with Human fingernails. Rhinocerous horns. Hair.

On a microscopic, and biological level. Look it up.

There's a lot more, but for those who prefer to live in ignorance and believe in supernatural occurences, there's little hope of them ever wishing to grow beyond their narrow focus.

Again, if there are "Young Earth Creationists" out there, they may as well just wrap it up, and turn in their brains, because they aren't having any use for them anymore.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I watched that video you posted. What he fails to say is that evolution also begins with precepts. He also stated a few areas where 50,000 years and 100,000 years of strata are found, claiming young earth creationsists have no explanation for....which is false. He did not mention that Creation Scientists observe all the same evidences for verification of Creation. He talked about what Creationists place their faith in, but failed to mention that evolutionists also put their faith in Time, Natural Processes, Mutations, etc. working together to bring about higher forms of life and new species.
He conveniently brough up a Supreme Court decision at the end to seal his sales pitch.

The guy artfully discredited creation scientists using disinformation.


I would like to have the original video in DV format so I can stop at each point in which diception is being used and insert my own explanation to show exactly where he is misleading people.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by John Matrix
 



But it's still a bird.


Yes.

So is an Ostrich, technically, still a bird.

There is substantial evidence to show the similarities in basic fundamentals between feathers and scales. The components that make up the two coverings are very similar.

Yes, it's evidence that points to a common designer, designing His creation with purpose.


Same with Human fingernails. Rhinocerous horns. Hair.
On a microscopic, and biological level. Look it up.

Yes, more common design evidence. It's everywhere you look. Creation model predicts this with unerring accuracy.


There's a lot more, but for those who prefer to live in ignorance and believe in supernatural occurences, there's little hope of them ever wishing to grow beyond their narrow focus.

Again, if there are "Young Earth Creationists" out there, they may as well just wrap it up, and turn in their brains, because they aren't having any use for them anymore.


OOOOO, now that should make all us creationists want to switch sides.


Do you think by insulting people's intelligence with comments like: ignorant, belittling them for believing in a supernatural God, saying there is little hope for them wishing to grow beyond their narrow focus, etc., advances your argument in an intelligent way?


Do you really think you make yourself look more reasonable and intelligent with this?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think most people could learn something about the topics being discussed in this thread, from watching this excerpt from one of his lectures: Dr Hazen also explains why "creation science" is not science and reads the supreme court ruling that says so and forbids teaching this in public schools because it's religion, not science.



Beginning with his opening statement:

Before we begin to examine some of the compelling evidence....the overwhelming evidence for evolution, I want to say a bit about science and religion.

That first statement set off my BS meter.

He then referred to evolution as a great principal of science and how it's a lightning rod for attacks by "fundamentalists and other religious groups in North America and elsewhere."

He failed to include other scientists. Not including those scientists that are at odds with evolution allows him to avoid a lot of questions.

Then he goes into Young Earth Creationism, which he says is based on Literal Interpretations of the Bible. He fails to say anything about the scientific evidence and observations which scientists use to support their young earth view. Creation Scientists have alternate explanations for every single piece of evidence used evolutionists to formulate their old earth theory. He cites one explanation, which is, God created the earth and life with the appearance of age. Obviously, humans need to be nurtured and looked after, much longer than the animals do, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the first humans were created mature and of age, with the ability to take care of themselves. Likewise, the planet was created with the appearance of age. It's no great leap of faith to accept that theory....or is it?

He gives his audience three precepts that he claims forms the basis for Creationism, but fails to show the precepts that Evolution is built on. Why?

The first precept is that the earth is perhaps 10,000 years old. He says that precept is based on a literal interpretation of the bible and the study of it's chronology of the geneology. That is only partly true. Creation scientists look at the same evidences as evolutionists do, and make their observations and conclude that there is evidence for a much younger earth, apart from the bible. But he did not go into those details at all.

For example: The oldest living coral reef on earth is approx. 4400 years old. Space dust accumulations on the ocean floor shows approx. 10,000 years worth. Space dust on the moon also shows approx. 10,000 years of accumulation...not millions or billions. The oldest living tree is approx. 4400 years old. We don't know that decay rates have been constant in the past. I can go on all day listing the evidence that points to a much younger earth, which evolutionists have a difficult time coming up with any reasonable response to.

The second precept is that God created everything in a miraculous act and in it's present form more or less. Self explanatory and nothing much to attack there. Either you believe it or you don't....and evolutionists don't, which is their impetus for beliveing in natural processes bringing into existance life from non living particles.

The third precept is that the surface of the earth is the result of great catastrophies. I'll add here the flood which the evidence overwhelming supports the scientific theory that approximately 4400 years ago there was a word wide flood at a time when the earths surface was rolling hills with many small lakes and ponds. The weight of the flood waters on the earths surface caused the earths crust to collapse at it's weakest points. When this happened, mountain ranhges formed from the displacement, much like what happens when you make a footprint in mud.....there is uplifted material around the outline of your foot print.

Where did all the water come from? Below the ground(where a lot of water is even today all over the world) and possibly from the upper atmosphere. There is also evidence to support a theory that the earth was shielded at one time by a layer of clear or opaque ice in the upper atmosphere. That might sound far fetched, but consider how far fetched it is to believe that life can come from non life particles through natural processes working over hundreds of millions of years. How did the water get onto the face of the earth? Not a difficult job for the creator, but there are natural processes that could account for it, such as a ice meteor crashing though the upper atmosphere and causing the ice shield to collapse, bringing rain ans snow down to cover the earth. Causing Woolly Mammoths to be instantly frozen and buried alive in Siberia maybe?

Shall I continiue?


[edit on 15/9/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Hi John,

Thanks for watching the video and thanks for the feedback.


Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I watched that video you posted. What he fails to say is that evolution also begins with precepts. He also stated a few areas where 50,000 years and 100,000 years of strata are found, claiming young earth creationsists have no explanation for....which is false. He did not mention that Creation Scientists observe all the same evidences for verification of Creation. He talked about what Creationists place their faith in, but failed to mention that evolutionists also put their faith in Time, Natural Processes, Mutations, etc. working together to bring about higher forms of life and new species. He conveniently brough up a Supreme Court decision at the end to seal his sales pitch.


I have an opinion, you have an opinion, and Dr. Hazen has an opinion. None of our opinions carry the weight of law. The Supreme court also has an opinion, that creation science is not science, and their opinion DOES carry the weight of law. I can't say they get every decision right, but since there's no higher court of appeals (at least on Earth, maybe there is in the spiritual realm) we all have to live with their decision.

I've read young earth creationist website explanations for the 250,000 years of ice core strata in the Antarctic and it appears to me they twist the observations to fit their preconceived notions. For example if they see there are 250,000 annual layers in the ice cores, and they KNOW the earth is only 10,000 years old, then they draw the conclusion that there must be 25 layers a year deposited, basically twisting the data to fit their precepts. And even if one assumes this it doesn't explain all the many layers of strata below that, so when you point that out they keep adding more and more layers per year to their interpretation of the ice cores. So yes the people calling themselves creation scientists have explanations for the ice core layers but I have to agree with Dr Hazen and the Supreme Court in observing that their explanations have more of a foundation in religion than in science.

Let's see what a Christian and professional glaciologist has to say about the topic:

www.edwardtbabinski.us...

From: Andrew Ruddell
(a Christian and also a professional glacialogist -- E.T.B.)
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 4:17 AM
To: question@bibleandscience.com

To Drs. Meyer and Murray,
What a great web site you two have created!

Good to see someone taking both the Bible and science seriously. Along with you guys, I believe that God does not need falsehood to prop up his kingdom. While science operates under his lordship it must operate in the realm of reason to achieve the benefits he intends for humanity. When such "reason" is used as a basis for belief it becomes speculative as we see in "creation science," then we run into all sorts of problems such as scholasticism, gnosticism, etc. God's Kingdom can only come by faith when and where he wills. It doesn't come any quicker by us "bearing false witness."

My past career was a science teacher then a glaciologist (following a PhD at Univ of Melbourne -working on the New Zealand glacial retreat due to recent warming, then several years working on the Antarctic Ice Sheet) and now doing a BTh/BMin to go into the ministry.

Attached below is an email sent to Answers In Genesis following the dubious claim that the Greenland ice sheet is only about 2,000 years old. I believe an article similar to my comments exists (Seely, P.H., "The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah's Flood Was Not Global, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55(4):252-260, 2003.) The Answers in Genesis people are currently working on a "rebuttal" of the Seely article, which I also look forward to seeing.

Sincerely in Christ,
Andrew

Feel free to use the following material (no need to give acknowledgements). Other material exists elsewhere (Don Lindsay's web site, Todd Greene, etc). The Oard article below has some glaring misquotes and I believe that Dr Weiland is out of his depth, but they are brother's in Christ and I believe that we must work positively and objectively with them.

Summary letter to the editor of Answers in Genesis for publication:
Age of Greenland ice core
Dr Wieland's articles in Creation 26(1) and 19(3) claim that the 3 km Greenland ice core (GISP2) is younger than that determined by glaciological analysis, and represents only about 2,000 years of accumulation. This conflicts with the established age of at least 40,000 years obtained by the counting of annual layers using visual stratigraphy by Meese et al. (1997) to a depth of 2340 m. This method is independently supported by conductivity and particulate variation, and volcanic fallout. The method used by Dr Wieland is much lower because it appears to have not adequately considered the substantial inland decrease in accumulation rate, its density variation, or the rate of strain thinning in the GISP2 ice core. Is this correct?
... continued...see source for more



Originally posted by John Matrix
He gives his audience three precepts that he claims forms the basis for Creationism, but fails to show the precepts that Evolution is built on. Why?


Well in answer to this question, and the other question I quoted above, and some others you asked, I have to say that I applied "fair use" in using others materials to show the clip I did, very similar to the way the ATS Terms and Conditions say we shouldn't quote more than 15% of an article lest it become plagiarism instead of fair use.

The small excerpt I posted is from lecture #55 in a series of 60 lectures Dr Hazen recorded. Even as early as lecture 45 he's setting the basis for the theory of Evolution with facts on Cells, proteins, then genetics (which go hand in hand with Evolution and provide more evidence for it besides the fossil record) in lectures 48-54. Starting with lecture 55 he goes into a lot more detail about evolution and spends several more lectures on that one topic.

While he does answer many many questions about all the precepts of evolution and related genetics in great detail, I unfortunately cannot post entire lectures and still remain within the spirit of "fair use" of another's material. I'm not trying to promote or sell anything and I have no affiliation with the company that sells his lectures but if someone wants to U2U me for details on where his lectures can be obtained I would be glad to provide that information privately. He answers many many questions in that lecture series, it's one of the best I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of lectures.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 



...with comments like: ignorant...


Apparently the word 'ignorant' grew out of my use of the word 'ignorance'. Shall I provide dictionary references?


...belittling them for believing in a supernatural God...


"belittling"??? Nope. Just astonished at the lack of having a broad enough scope, just as it seems those of ancient times, as well. IN FACT, the notion of supernatural beings in the 'sky' IS outdated, and well should be, if this species is to survive and advance.



...saying there is little hope for them wishing to grow beyond their narrow focus...


I think it's clear that most simply care not to. They are TERRIFIED that by examining their beleifs too closely, the fallacy will become evident.



And, with some responses to Hazen and others seen here, and elsewhere, show a severe case of wishful thinking. Just repeating incorrect "facts" like the mud at the bottom of the oceans is only 10,000 years old, or the dust on the surface of the Moon is only 10,000 years old is absolutely proving my point.

It is intellectual dishonesty. I find it sad. Because, I share this planet with people who think that way --- and I don't want them making decisions that might affect ME, based on beliefs of that kind.

ESPECIALLY that subset of people who are so fatalistic as to believe in a "rapture" and "end times" and such rubbish.

We here in the USA have seen the results of an former group of "elected" and appointed Govermental types who tend to think that way, and the lack of remorse for the consequences that they may have unleashed in the World.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Continuing on with my analysis of that video: www.abovetopsecret.com...

1. He then talks about the Creationist view that all the fossils found all over the world are explained by the creationist as resulting from Noah's flood, followed by his statement:

"Here's the central point of this debate between the scientific and theological point of view."

The central point of the debate is not between science and theology. The central point of the debate is the interpretations of the evidences. Those interpretations are done from scientists on both sides of the issue. The fact that the bible supports the creation scientists views is no reason to discredit them. Many would hold to the creation science view even if the bible did not exist. Why, because purposeful design implies a creator. This should be self evident to everyone. A watch has a designer and watch maker....it's made with a purpose. A car has a designer, and purpose behind it. All machines and objects made by man have purpose in design.

Natural processes never built a Red Ferrari, yet you want me to believe it can come up with something as complicated as a single cell....or a human being and all other life forms? Gee...machinery seems much easier to come up with....wonder why natural processes decided to pick life which is far more complicated.

He continues:

All scientific theories must be subject to change, based on new data or observation.

What he actually means here is that Evolutionists need to explain new contradictory evidences by altering and modifying, their theory with secondary assumptions.

But young earth creationists accept the three tenants of their origin model as biblical statements as a matter of faith

Again, Evolutionists place their faith in natural processes, natural selection, mutations, punctuated equilibrium, eons of TIME, working together to form thousands of species of life with increasing complexities.

This guy loves to attempt to discredit creation scientists as being fundamentalists with religious motivation having faith, yet fails to accept his own faith in the premises that are the foundation of evolutionist doctrines.

The scientific principal of gradual evolution and the vast body of biological and geological evidence that support is seen by many creationists as a direct challenge to their faith.

I cannot speak for all creationists, but I believe that statement is false. That same body of evidence is interpreted by creation scientists to support creation. Creation scientists have a different interpretation and explanation for the evidence, regardless of what the bible teaches. That the bible sides with the creation view is no reason to discredit their view. Using the bible, faith and religion like this is a cheap shot and a weak argument.


Then he moves on to read one letter from someone who opposes evolution. He claims the letter is typical of how religious people oppose evolution. A nice way to generate a sympathy response to open up your audience to accepting your evolutionist religion!!



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
'

Well then, I enjoy being all those things you think I am. I wear it as a badge of honor....thank you very much.


I'm quite pleased that you don't see any similarities between me and yourself. If you did, I would start to question my faith.





posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just repeating incorrect "facts" like the mud at the bottom of the oceans is only 10,000 years old, or the dust on the surface of the Moon is only 10,000 years old is absolutely proving my point.


Actually what you did above was incorrectly state what I said.

I said space dust accumulations on the ocean floor show approximately 10,000 years of accumulation.

I said that space dust on the moon's surface shows approximately 10,000 years of accumulation.

Do some research on it. The moon lander was built with large landing pods because scientists calculated 1 inch of space dust would accumulate every 10,000 years....and if the moon was billions of years old, they were concerned the moon lander would sink into it and not be able to leave the surface. What they found was 3/4 of an inch.....Remember the footprint in the dust in that moon photo?



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
It will be released in america, this is just publicity for it. Kinda like the blair witch story being "real".



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix
It's impossible for even one branch of evolution, let alone the thousands of parallel evolutions that would have had to take place for us to have the thousands of so called evolved species.


Pray tell why this is impossible. You seem so confident stating this. When you are at it, explain prenatal development of human fetus featuring many features of predecessors of humans, as they stand in the evolutionary chain. Gills, tails and all.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join