Moderator: Community Team
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
nietzsche wrote:I'm familiar with the theory of evolution, I've actually read a couple of good books on it but I would like as a manner of experiment to start a thread in order for those who really know about it, to explain the cornerstones of the theory, I mean the fossils and timelines and all.
I was about to start it but I declined in the idea because I'm not going to start another thread like these. I've actually would like a discussion on specific fossils and why do they point out directly to the veracity on the evolution model.
Do you think such a thread has a future or it will end up like all the religion vs evolution threads?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:Chiropractic, according to his profile, in case you feel that information is pertinent.
Because saying "evolution requires cross-breeding" is so patently absurd I'd quite like to know which hospital/practice you work at so that I can avoid it like the plague should I ever fall ill in Texas.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Viceroy63 wrote:The argument for cross breeding not being viable for the creation of new species, is an excellent example of how evolution can not occur. In every case of cross breeding the subject is born sterile or with in a generation or two. This is Gods (natures) way of insuring the quality of the kind. In the case of the Liger at least, they are born sterile, unable to reproduce. If the theory of evolution was in any way true then why can't the Liger's reproduce and become it's own new species or intermediary species on the planet?
Because evolution can't happen. Life does not evolved from lower life forms to produce better species or kinds of creatures. The Liger is an excellent example of that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOWYj59BXI
DoomYoshi wrote:I would like to solidify my arguments with a great quote of Jeff Goldblum, preferably from the Fly, but meh.
Seth Brundle wrote:A fly... got into the... transmitter pod with me that first time, when I was alone. The computer... got confused - there weren't supposed to be two separate genetic patterns - and it decided to... uhh... splice us together. It mated us, me and the fly. We hadn't even been properly introduced.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:I would like to solidify my arguments with a great quote of Jeff Goldblum, preferably from the Fly, but meh.Seth Brundle wrote:A fly... got into the... transmitter pod with me that first time, when I was alone. The computer... got confused - there weren't supposed to be two separate genetic patterns - and it decided to... uhh... splice us together. It mated us, me and the fly. We hadn't even been properly introduced.
Lootifer wrote:Infertility of hybrids simply means that neo-darwinian theory has slight limitations.
The movement of plates has caused the formation and break-up of continents over time, including occasional formation of a supercontinent that contains most or all of the continents. The supercontinent Columbia or Nuna formed during a period of 2,000 to 1,800 million years ago and broke up about 1,500 to 1,300 million years ago.[63] The supercontinent Rodinia is thought to have formed about 1 billion years ago and to have embodied most or all of Earth's continents, and broken up into eight continents around 600 million years ago. The eight continents later re-assembled into another supercontinent called Pangaea; Pangaea broke up into Laurasia (which became North America and Eurasia) and Gondwana (which became the remaining continents).
universalchiro wrote:The whole foundation of Evolution needs and requires time. And lots of it.
To determine the age of the earth, this is done most accurately via radioactive Isotopes. An algorithmic calculation is used. For example:
# PB ions / # PO ions X Constant Rate of Decay = Life of the item being tested.
So where's the problem?
Has the rate of decay always been accurate?
Can Mankind accelerate the rate of decay?
Can Nature accelerate the rate of decay?
Let's find out.
Petrified trees are said to take 500,000 years to form. Yet Mount Saint Helen erupted in 1980. And has produced petrified trees. Ooops
Coal is said to take 20 million years to form. Yet, If I take a piece of wood, in a tube, add trace elements of clay and water, seal it in a vacuum, bake it at 150 degrees Celsius for 8 months; Presto... that piece of wood is now 100% coal. That newly formed coal, when tested by scientist to determine it's age, wow, you guessed it. They determine it's 20 million years old.
So since Nature is able to accelerate the aging process, and mankind is able to accelerate the aging process. Then the rate of decay has not always been constant. And life on earth is indeed much younger than evolution is theorizing.
Timminz wrote:*logarithmic
I was curious about that laboratory created coal, so I googled it. Can anyone guess what the top hit was?
It was Creation Worldview Ministries. I've never heard of this group before, but I might suggest that they're not exactly impartial.
The only other reference to actually being able to create coal in a lab, was a link to Conservapedia, where their source was, you might have guessed it, Creation Ministries International.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users