Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:#1. No. We have an alphabet with 26 letters.. so far, but people can still can and do create brand new words, pretty much all the time.
#2. The idea that this is NOT evolution, is something, again, put forward by Creationists who have finally recognized that their arguments are faulty.. but instead of just admitting they were wrong, have decided to change the definitions of the worlds they use. What you say only makes sense if you ignore what is actually said in evolutionary theory.. as well as lot of other science.
I wish that I had more time.
Yes, we only have 26 letters in the English alphabet; But no matter how hard we try to recombine, mutate or alter the letters, they will never evolve to form Chinese writings.
Viceroy63 wrote: And that is what is false about the theory of evolution.
Viceroy63 wrote:Micro evolution and Macro evolution are not the same thing. Yet that's what Darwinist do all the time. The old switcharoo con where evolution is evolution not matter how you look at it.
Viceroy63 wrote:And if it works in one area then it must work in all areas. Why even stars evolve??? Into what we don't know for no one ever saw it happen, but perhaps they evolve into pretty butterflies???
crispybits wrote:Again you miss the real point Viceroy, any organisation seeking the truth doesn't start of from any preconceptions and look to make reality fit into whatever those are, they start off from a totally blank slate and whatever they find and can prove is the truth.
Viceroy63 wrote:The following can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... html#SFB06
Acts 7:22 tells us that …“Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians…” Yet scientific ignorance is conspicuous by its absence in the first five books of the Bible, written by Moses approximately 1491-1451 B.C. In fact the Torah (or law of Moses) not only reveals advanced principles and knowledge about hygiene, quarantine and sanitation far superior to that possessed by the Egyptians and other ancient societies of that day, but also far exceeded medical standards practiced as recently as 100 years ago. Where did Moses get this advanced information?
Viceroy63 wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:I can show you evidence of a world wide flood but you can't show me one piece of evidence of a dinosaur turning into a bird. Yet that is what science teaches.
Viceroy, meet Archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx, this is Viceroy. I don't think the two of you will get along.
No Haggis, You are Wrong! Archaeopteryx is not evidence of a Dinosaur turning into a bird. It is not even a missing link. It is evidence of the ignorance of so called intellectual folks allowing themselves to get duped into believing the lie that Darwinists want you to believe so badly. Why don't you research the facts before posting and repeating evolutionist lies.
For the Record, if you bothered to looked into it, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird and not a dinosaur at all. If the species known as Birds evolved from the Dinosaurs then where is the missing link between the dinosaur and Archaeopteryx? Again I repeat that Archaeopteryx is a fully formed bird just as we see with every creature in the fossil records, all of them fully formed and no intermediary species between any of them at all.
"Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird."
(http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopt ... fully_bird)
Would you like for me to show you evidence of a world wide BIBLICAL flood now?
Viceroy63 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:Controversy
Beginning in 1985, a group including astronomer Fred Hoyle and physicist Lee Spetner published a series of papers claiming that the feathers on the Berlin and London specimens of Archaeopteryx were forged. Their claims were repudiated by Alan J. Charig and others at the British Museum (Natural History). Most of their evidence for a forgery was based on unfamiliarity with the processes of lithification; for example, they proposed that based on the difference in texture associated with the feathers, feather impressions were applied to a thin layer of cement, without realizing that feathers themselves would have caused a textural difference. They also expressed disbelief that slabs would split so smoothly, or that one half of a slab containing fossils would have good preservation, but not the counterslab. These, though, are common properties of Solnhofen fossils because the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along, leaving the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other. They also misinterpreted the fossils, claiming that the tail was forged as one large feather, when this is visibly not the case. In addition, they claimed that the other specimens of Archaeopteryx known at the time did not have feathers, which is incorrect; the Maxberg and Eichstätt specimens have obvious feathers. Finally, the motives they suggested for a forgery are not strong, and contradictory; one is that Richard Owen wanted to forge evidence in support of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is unlikely given Owen's views toward Darwin and his theory. The other is that Owen wanted to set a trap for Darwin, hoping the latter would support the fossils so Owen could discredit him with the forgery; this is unlikely because Owen himself wrote a detailed paper on the London specimen, so such an action would certainly backfire.
Charig et al. pointed to the presence of hairline cracks in the slabs running through both rock and fossil impressions, and mineral growth over the slabs that had occurred before discovery and preparation, as evidence that the feathers were original. Spetner et al. then attempted to show that the cracks would have naturally propagated through their postulated cement layer, but neglected to account for the fact that the cracks were old and had been filled with calcite, and thus were not able to propagate. They also attempted to show the presence of cement on the London specimen through X-ray spectroscopy, and did find something that was not rock. However, it was not cement, either, and is most probably from a fragment of silicone rubber left behind when molds were made of the specimen. Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by palaeontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then. Charig et al. reported a discolouration: a dark band between two layers of limestone – however, they say it is the product of sedimentation. It is natural for limestone to take on the colour of its surroundings and most limestones are coloured (if not colour banded) to some degree – the darkness was attributed to such impurities. They also mention that a complete absence of air bubbles in the rock slabs is further proof that the specimen is authentic.
Yes Jones; All of those numbers in brackets "" for example is where you would find those words and claims.
"they say it is the product of sedimentation."
No one is arguing with me or some creationist institute. But rather with a whole host of authorities who have written whole books on the subject. That a Creationist Institute is presenting these facts should not make a difference to the truly enlightened scientist among us. To reject it because it is a Creationist Institute making the presentation is simply ignorance and book burning mentality. This goes for everyone, not just jones. I just happen to use this comment to respond to everyone at once.
Viceroy63 wrote:No one is arguing with me or some creationist institute. But rather with a whole host of authorities who have written whole books on the subject. That a Creationist Institute is presenting these facts should not make a difference to the truly enlightened scientist among us. To reject it because it is a Creationist Institute making the presentation is simply ignorance and book burning mentality. This goes for everyone, not just jones. I just happen to use this comment to respond to everyone at once.
crispybits wrote:How much would you pay Michael Jordan for basketball lessons? Zero.
How much would you pay Stephen Hawking for physics lessons? Zero.
How much would you pay Michael Jordan for physics lessons? Zero.
How much would you pay Stephen Hawking for basketball lessons? Zero.
If you answered the same for both sets of questions you are undoubtedly totally deluded.
crispybits wrote:OK rephrase the questions to how much could they charge for those lessons. Smart-Alec
BigBallinStalin wrote:crispybits wrote:OK rephrase the questions to how much could they charge for those lessons. Smart-Alec
(1) Do the prices for those jobs truly reflect their relevant knowledge and skills for the job? Or are prices part of the conspiracy?
(2) Are the researchers at the Creationist Institute well paid?
Assume that their price of labor is the same as the non-creationist scientists. What then, crispytbits, what then?