RE:evolution

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Coup d'état, Feb 10, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    This is a reply to http://board.rapmusic.com/sanctuary/1311777-evolution.html

    The first four stages of evolution that had to of happened before life came from rocks is going to be given:

    1. Cosmic evolution- The origin of time space and matter. Big Bang
    2. Chemical Evolution - The origin of higher elements from hydrogen
    3. Stellar Evolution - Origin of stars and planets
    4th. Organic Evolution - Origin of life from non living material

    So keep that in mind. We are going to start when the ocean soup came alive.

    Topics:
    Intro
    1 Geologic column/fossil record
    2 fossils
    3 morphological similarities/comparative anatomy
    4 DNA
    5 vestigial "artifacts"
    6 bacteria and mutations
    7 argon dating
    8 carbon dating


    I believe the Bible is literally true, and it teaches very clearly the earth is about 6,000 years old. I predict we can find evidence for this found all throughout nature. I predict there will be thousands of symbiotic relationships observed. The Bible teaches everything was created with symbiotic relationship. The Bible teaches everything was created within six days of each other. Plants, animals, everything created in a very short time frame. What we find we find all over nature, literally millions of examples, are what are known as symbiosis relationships, were certain plants require certain animals to pollinate them, or certain animals require certain plants to survive.

    How on earth can these things evolve independently ? The evolution theory has a hard enough time getting any thing to evolve, not to mention the fact there is no evidence of any kind to show anything has ever evolved. We don't ever see any things change. Dogs produce dogs, every time. To get things to evolve symbolically and to believe it is ludicrous. I predict baised on the Bible teachings there will be limits to the variations. The Bible says they are going to bring forth after their kind. And that is exactly what we see. Sure you get a lot of varieties, big dogs, little dogs. But you will never get something other than the kind. So that's a prediction. There are lots of different variates out there but there are clear limits. A 5 year old can tell between dogs and a whales. Some scientists can't.

    I predict, baised on the Bible teachings that they will be a purpose to life. A reason of why we are here. Baised on the assumption the bible is true. I think we can make the prediction that there will be non material things in this world. Things you cannot put in a jar and hold. Things like love,sense of justice,mercy, innate knowledge of right and wrong. A conscious, an absolute truth. How would any of theses come about via an evolutionary theory ? With the evolution process ?

    I predict there will be a way to find the will of the creator. That the creator of this universe left behind information in that we can find Him. And find out what He wants us to do.

    Maybe three will be massager's he sends out like prophets and preachers, and evangelists, maybe I predict, there will be a book he left behind. I take the Bible to be literally true. Genesis is historical fact. It's mythology as some people will teach, though I predict there will be an after life and an accounting one day, to stand before God. I predict we will find creation myths and flood myths found all over the world that have no influence from Christianity. I predict culture will teach about an golden age where people lived to be a 1000 years old.

    Somebody is wrong. Evolution or God. We will now find out. Evolution ultimately teaches that humans came from an ape like ancestor. Every bit of evidence ever used for this, like Lucy or Neanderthal man, or Peking man, or Homo erectus has all been proved wrong. They'll keep teaching it though for as long as the theory is still believed and necessary to the foundation of humanist NWO. It's coming.

    The Nebraska Man was in the textbooks for 40 years and all they found for it was one tooth. One tooth. And that was in their books for a 40 years as evidence for evolution ? It later turned out to be the tooth of a pig. There are many examples of this. Lucy was a three foot tall chimp like any animal constructed from bones spread out over 2 miles. Not a missing link at all. The whole chain is missing.

    The bigger picture they are missing totally is that we don't see evolution happening today, this is for sure. SO they say let's look at the fossil recored. There is no such thing as a fossil record. There are a bunch of bones in the dirt. Evolutionists put their interpretations on them but, it's not a record.
    test
  2. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    geologic column 1

    In 1830 Charles Lyell wrote the book "Principles of Geology". IN this book you can see his hate of the Bible ooze off every page. He kept calling it ancient doctrines. He was mocking scriptural authority throughout.

    "False conclusions...futile reasoning...ancient doctrines sanctioned by the implicit faith on many generations and supposed to rest on scriptural authority" - Charles Lyell p.30

    He called the Bible: "accusations founded on religious prejudices" -p.147. He said, "Men of superior talent (like himself) who thought for themselves, and were not blinded by authority (like the bible) -p.302.

    He used every opportunity he could find to mock the scriptures. You don't need to go very far until you run into a professor in college with a mocking attitude against God. Seems like their goal in life is to destroy your faith. I had a bunch of them when I went to school. They just wanted to destroy my confidence. And they did, because I belived them.

    Charles Lyell said his goal was to, "free the sciences from moses" -Life Letters and Journals, Published by John Murray 1881

    What do you suppose he meant by that ? Well, before Charles wrote his book everybody looked at geology, grand canyon for example, and said look what the flood did. He did not like people interpreting the earth's history in light of the Bible. He wanted people to interpret the earth's history in terms of millions of years. Lyell was the primary guy responsible for inventing what is known as the geological column

    [​IMG]

    The cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Permian, Carboniferous, Devonian, silurian, ordovrcian and cambrian. They divided the earth up in layers and gave them names. Each layer of rock was given a name and an index fossil. Keep in mind all this was done in 1830, before there ever was carbon dating, potassium argon dating and all the other dating decay methods. None of those had ever been thought of. SO they did not determine any of these great ages by any dating metric decay method at all. They just picked the numbers out of the clear blue sky.

    It's a fact that the earth has many layers of sedimentary rock. How did they get there ? There are two interpretations. One group says the layers formed slowly over millions of years, and the other group says the layers are all from the flood in the days of Noah. Evolutionists are always trying to erase the line and make students think their interpretation is part of the fact that there are layers in the earth. It's not. It's just their interpretation. That is all.

    The geological column is actually the bible for the evolutionists. They only place you will ever find it is in the textbooks. It does not exist. This guy admits it,

    Did you know there is no geological column ? If there was it would be a 100 miles thick. It does not exist. All of evolution is baised on this lie. It's true the earth has layers that is not the question. How then did they get there ?

    [​IMG]

    If that layer sat there for 10 million years waiting for the next layer, don't you think it's going to rain once and awhile ? In ten million years ? Why are there no erosion marks between the layers ? Why are they stacked on top each other like pan cakes ? Soil builds up on the top of rock you know.

    If you get a jar of dirt, rocks and mud and shake it up with gravel, more mud and set it down it settles into layers for you in a matter of minutes.

    [​IMG]

    But evolutionists tell the age by which index fossil is in the layer. They tell the age off the fossil by what layer they are in. That is circular reasoning. Strata are dated by the fossils then fossils are dated by the strata.

    They don't date fossils by carbon dating, potassium dating etc... That is not how they do it.

    "There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from" said one Niles Eldredge, one of the most famous evolutionists alive today. He says, " This poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, who can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record ?" - Eldredge, Niles- Time Frames - Rethinking of Darwinian evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium p.57

    Circular reasoning is what E. Niles is getting at.

    Now that is brilliant. The cheese done fell out of his sand which. But still, the public has no right to question them,

    But it is all based on circular reasoning. Did you know that in still water sediment layers settle out the bottom layer first, then the second one, then the 3rd...that is correct. But in moving water you can get five or six or ten layers to form simultaneously. So it is possible to have a fossil on the bottom that is younger than the top. If it's moving water (flood).
    test
  3. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    geologic column 2

    The geological column contains lime stone in quite a few places, in many layers. If I handed you a piece of lime stone, how would you know if it's hundreds of million years old Jurassic limestone or 600 million year old cambrian limestone ?

    [​IMG]

    Exactly what is the difference ? Evolutionists will say the only way to tell the difference is by the index fossils. Precisely my point. They date the layers by the fossils.

    Somebody found a human shoe print ( a human wearing a shoe) that had stepped on a smashed trilobite. Evolutionists teach that Trilobites fossils make good index fossils. If a trilobite such as this one is found in a rock layer, the rock layer was probably formed 500 to 600 million years ago according to the theory.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    ^Human shoe print w trilobite inside. Found by William Meister of Kearns Utah, June 1 1968. Photo from Readers digest Mysteries of the Unexplained. p.38 Dr. H.H Doelling of Utah's geological survey verified it was not a fake.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    how on Earth can a human step on a trilobite ? If trilobites lived 500 million years ago and man did not get here until 3 million years ago and they did not start wearing shoes until about 10 ten thousand years ago, how could a human step on a trilobite ? They only things atheist will say is that it's obvious aliens visited the planet 500 million years ago. Those aliens did it.

    Trilobite eyes have " The most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature" - Lisa Sawyer - Science News Feb 1972 - p.72

    "The eyes of early trilobites...have never been exceeded form complexity or acuity" -Stephen J. Gould- Natural History Feb. 1984 p.23. And this is one of the first creatures to evolve ? It already has the most complex eye ?

    [​IMG]

    No, Trilobites are not index fossils for anything. There are a lot of different types of trilobites and some are probably alive today. For example the Baltic Isopod is certainly. They are called different names, but many are still found. The textbooks say, "Graptolites are index fossils for 410 million year old rocks" -Earth magazine sept. 1993. Graptolites are still found today in the south pacific. So if you find one, you cannot use that as index fossils for any rock at all.

    They tell the kids that the lobe-finned fish are index fossils for 325-410 million year old rock. They say he has a little bit of leg and some fin. This is an index fossil for the Devonian era (when animals first went to dry land). They say that this proves the fish is evolving from a fin to a leg. Lie. The Lobed fish are still alive today. There swimming around in the Indian Ocean

    [​IMG]

    When they caught the first one in 1938 and when the scientists looked at it they were stunned. They just said they survived from 325 million years. lol It never dawns on them once to question the geological column. That thought never crossed their brain. You don't question the geological column. It is holy and sacred. They still used this as an index fossil today for 325 million year old rock when they know they are swimming in the ocean. How can they be that dumb ?

    A lady wrote a book about the lobed fish called "A Fish Caught In Time". In the book she said it's, "our own great-uncle forty million times removed". lmao.
    test
  4. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    geologic column 3

    You will be told that dinosaurs are index fossils for the creataceious period. 70million years ago. That's bull crap. Some dinosaurs bones are found today that have blood still inside them -Earth June 1997 p.55-57

    [​IMG]

    How long are the blood cells going to last ? Soft tissue is found in dinosaur bones still flexible; with soft tissue today. One was found in March of 2005.

    There are fossilized human hands found in the same rock strata as dinosaur bones. They tell you the layers are different ages, that's simply not true. Charles Darwin did not like round numbers so he said the Wealden Deposits in England were 306,662,400 years old -Noah to Abram, The Turbulent Years by Erich Von Fange p.116

    How could Darwin possibly know this ? All over the world the wolrd petrified tress are found standing up, connecting many different rock layers. Petrified tress standing up. how long does a dead tree stand up before it falls down ? 5, 10 maybe 15 years ? 500 million ? yet, petrified trees in the vertical position are found all over the world.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    They are all running through multiple layers and the kids are being taught the layers are different ages, yet there hundreds, thousands of trees connecting them all.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    I'm having a hard time believing these layers are different ages. South Alabama has a coal mine with a whole bunch of petrified tress sticking out, standing up and connecting the rock strata. Running between two seems of coal.

    [​IMG]

    They are going to tell you in school. for coal to form, a forest has to grow and then it all falls over and turns into a swamp. Then it gets buried and then new mud washes in on top and the coal slowly forms form the forest that was buried. And then thousands of years later, another forest grows on top and a whole new layer of coal forms. So, if you found two rock layers of coal they will say that took thousands of years to form.

    This is what they teach in school. It's wrong. Any freshmen law student will tell you that the coal layers formed at the same time. Very quickly, within a few weeks or months of each other, that's for sure. Probably in the flood during the days of Noah.

    Near Cook ville Tennessee there are found hundreds of petrified trees found in the Kettles Coal mines. The top and bottom of the tress are found in different coal seems that are dated thousands of years different in age. The trees are coalfield at the bottom, petrified in the middle and again coalfield at the top. -bible.ca/tracks -Don Patton

    Why are coal seems generally found on layers of rock or clay ? Wouldn't that be a poor place to grow a forest ? It ought to be on top of soil, don't you think ?

    Polystrate fossils around all over the world in all the rock layers:

    [​IMG]

    Scientist say this is cerious...no, it's more than curious. It's devastating to their teachings.

    [​IMG]

    Occasionally the petrified trees are found upside down, running trough many rock layers. Now we really got a problem

    [​IMG]

    the evolutionists have two ways to solve this:

    1. The trees stoop up right for millions of years while the sediment layers formed around them
    2. The trees grew through hundreds of feet of soil and sedimentary rock looking for sunlight

    But, there is a 3rd way at looking at it: Maybe they were all buried by the flood.

    *
    Mount saint Helen's blew thousands of trees into spirit lake. Lots of these tress are stuck into the mud.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    In the bottom of spirit lake many of them are buried upright an and some are already 15 feet deep in sediments. They seem to settle out by species, giving the appearance of a complete forest. They are going to petrify in the standing position. It does not take long for things to petrify. There has been petrified fire wood found. A mummified dog was found mummified in a tree, turned to stone completely.There has been found a petrified cowboy boot with a foot still in it. The boot was made in 1950 and the leg has been turned to stone. There has been found a petrified fish giving birth

    [​IMG]

    It does not take millions of years to give birth. If you think the rock strata are different ages you are confused. Nearly all of them formed a the time of the flood.

    Even thought the geological column only exist in the textbooks, it was this teaching that changed and pulled people away from the Bible, starting back in 1830 and made people believe in uniformtarialsm.
    test
  5. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    fossils

    They teach the kids that fossils give evidence for evolution. No fossil counts as evidence for evolution. They teach evolution as a fact to the kids and say that the fossil record provides some of the strongest evidence that species evolved over time. There is no fossil record. You don't look 'back' in the fossil record, only you look at fossils. They put there interpretation on them. They don't find fossils with a date and a card telling how old it is. There is no such way to tell. How did we fall for such a dumb idea ?

    But they still teach today that fossils contribute to the understanding of evolution. Darwin said that if his theory be true that numberless intermediate variates must assuredly have existed. There must be a bunch out there then ? No. There ought to be billions. They teach that many links have been found. They are dummies. David Roup said,

    Fantasy in the textbooks ? NOOOO WAYYYYY. You got to be kidding ? Nope. Evolution is all based on fantasy. There are no missing links. If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is that it died. You can't prove it had any kids and you sure can't prove it had different kids. Why would you think a bone in the dirt can do something animals alive today can't do ? The different fields: biology, geology, ecology, genealogy etc all the ologies, all say that the don't have the evidence, but the other Fields do.

    The British Museum of Natural History has the larges fossil collection in the world. When the senor paleontologist was asked why he did not show the missing links in his book he said,

    See, there is not any missing link. The whole chain is missing. So, they now have a new theory to explain why they are missing. Dr. Stephen J. Gould said,

    He knows there is no evidence so he brought up a new theory, that maybe the first bird hatched from a reptile egg. Huh ? He taught that if it happened so quickly that there is no evidence. That's smart. They don't have any proof so that proves it, that is what they are saying. It's called Punctuated equilibrium, wher evolution happens in leaps and big jumps. Try that logic in a court of law and see how far you get...

    They teach the kids that the fossil record shows that species evolved through may small steps...They ask the kids in the textbooks to think critically, by asking them how evolution happened: Gradually with slow changes like Darwin said or was it big leaps and jumps like Stephen Gould said ?

    In their minds there is only two choices: Evolution happened slowly or evolution happened quickly. The don't seem to be capable to think outside the box. It did not happen at all . God created the different kinds of animals.

    They say the Hippo is adapting to aquatic life because it likes to cool off in the pools. lmao really ? Every evolutionists think the evidence is in somebody else's field. It's like a shell game..wheres the ball ? The geologist thinks the biologists has the evidence. Botanists think th anthropologists have the evidence ...They all spread the blame, the only problem is there is no ball under the shell in this game. There is no evidence for evolution. None.
    test
  6. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    morphological similarities 1

    Did you know that you have two bones in your wrist ? The radius and the ulna ? And did you know the whale has two bones in his flipper, they are called radius and ulna (sp?) That proves we are related ? This is what they teach the kids. A lie can have a big influence. They say these homologous structures provide evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor. They called this comparative anatomy. That this commonality suggest all living are related. No. They have a common designer.

    The bones develop from different genes in chromosomes in different organisms. Evolutionists cannot explain this and seldom discuss it. They are not homologous. Did you know the lug nuts on a Pontiac will fit on a Chevy ? That proves they both evolved from a station wagon 14 million years ago. Maybe a common designer ? It's a good observation when they say many animals have similar four limb structure. Then they say they must of had a common ancestor. Bad conclusion. This don't' help prove we all came from a rock.

    [​IMG]

    Then they say there is evidence for development. The similarity between early stages in the development of many different animals helped convince Darwin that all forms of life shared common ancestors. Darwin considered this by far to be the strongest class of facts in favor of his theory. Haeckel called it the biogenetic law.

    Ernst haeckel made up the idea that all the embryos of different animals develop through the same stages. Fish, amphibian and mammal. he called it the bio genetic law. The textsbooks say the presence of fish like structures in the embryos of different species shows that the animals have evolved from fish and share the basic patteren of fish development.

    Does the human embryo have gill slits like a fish ? The textbooks say it does. Those are not gills in human embryos. Theses are folds of skin that develop into bones into the ear and glands in the throat .They have nothing to do with breathing.

    [​IMG]

    Ernst Haeckel, the German professor from a German university, made up this entire dumb idea in 1869. Darwin's book came out in 1859. The next year it was translated to German and Haeckel read the book and thought it would be great to find evidence to support the theory.

    Nine years later there was still none. So Heackel decided to make some. He was an embryology professor at Jena University, he taught how embryos develop. SO, he took a drawing of a dog and human embryo and changed them.He made them look just alike.

    [​IMG]

    And he used these to prove we have a common ancestor with dogs. Nobody caught on or stopped him so he did a bunch more. He took drawings of all kinds of different animals and faked them, and made them all look very similar. He made giant posters of his fake drawings and traveled all over Germany and told everybody to believe this new theory, because he had the 'proof'.

    After all, he is a professor of embryology right ? He must be true, right ? Would he lie ? How many people back then had microscopes to check him out ? He just about single handedly converted the German people to believe in evolution. If that is true, then they wondered what 'race' has evolved the best ? Must be the Germans. We know where that led...

    On top are the fake drawings, on bottom are the real drawings:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Heackel lied. Deliberately. His own university held a trial and convicted him in 1875. He said, "I should feel utterly condendemed...were it not that HUNDREDS of the best observers, and biologists lie under the same charge" -Records from the university of Jena trial in 1875 - Dr. Edward Blick, Blick Engineering Norman DK.

    '"Everybody else lies, so it's OK for me too'" was his thinking. Heackels biogenetic law is as dead as a door nail. It is not true, never was true:"Moreover, the biogentic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of it's having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars" -Walter J. Bock Dept of Biological Sciences. Columbia University - Evolution by Orderly Law - Science vol 164 p. 684-685

    Although Haeckel confessed to drawing from memory and was convicted of fraud at the university of Jena, the drawings persist. That's the real mystery. It was proven wrong 137 years ago and they are still found in textbooks today. Darwin wrote his book in 1859 and predicted evidence would be found. In 1869 Heackel faked some, and in 1875 he was convicted of lying. But the drawings are still here today as evidence and proof. I know it takes awhile to for textbooks to get up to date, but 137 years is long enough.

    So, the tiny 'gill slits' prove we evolved from a common ancestor ? No, that's a lie, they are not gill slits at all. Why are we still teaching this to our kids ? Because they have nothing to replace it with. One textbook shows a five to six week embryo...but then it says "by seven months the fetus looks like a tiny normal baby, but it's not" - Biology: A Journey into Life Arms and Comp 1991 p.557

    It's not a baby at seven months ? Hello, it's a human at conception. Every doctor knows that. 34% of babies born at 5 1/2 months survive -Time magazine Nov. 9 1998 p.60:

    And the angel of the Lord said Behold you are with CHILD -Gen 16:11

    It's a child before it is born. God knows that. Did he say you are with fetus ? No, He said child. Why keep this in the textbooks ? It's the only reason to justify abortion. They want you just to think it's a fish in the womb or an amphibian, so it is not really murder. You've not killing a child, you are killing a fish. That's why it's still taught. Some people want to reduce the population of our planet. His name is Satan.
    test
  7. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    morphological similarities 2

    The Eye:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    God said he formed the eye, "He hath the ear, shall he not hear ? He that formed the eye, shall he not see ? -Psalms 94:8-9

    Charles Darwin said in his book that to suppose the eye could have formed by natural selection is absurd to the highest degree. How can blind chance make a seeing eye ? The back of your eye is one square inch, yet it contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells. How would you like to be the electrician to hook 137 million wires and connections in one sq. inch ?

    Some say the eye is of poor design. That it is wired backward. They might say the that blood cells are in front of the retina and the light coming through has to go through the blood vessels to hit the retina and it blocks out some of the light. Not efficent. They say the Octopus has a much better eye. Because their blood vessels are behind the retina.

    But really, we live in the air. Air does not block UV light very well. UV light will destroy your retina. SO, you have blood vessels in front of your retina to block the UV light. The octopus lives in the water. Water blocks UV light. So they don't need blood vessels in front. They can see better under water then you can. But if you want to swap eyes with an octopus go ahead. But in a few days you will become blind.

    We are designed just fine for living in the air. They are designed just fine for living in the water. To say God would not have done it that way, so it must have then evolved is stupid. That is a dumb argument for evolution. Arguing against creation is not proof for evolution.

    You can walk around in a room and in one second your eye ball picks up enough data to keep a CRAY busy for thousands of years sorting out what you just saw in one second. Why doesn't God get the glory for what he made ?

    A textbook reads,

    In other words, you have to imagine how it happened. That's because it's never observed and you have to just imagine that it happens. That's not science. It's not observable, testable, demonstrable. But imagine all you want. Design demands a designer. It don't matter if you see him or not. You find a building you know it has been designed. A watch ? Designed. A painting ? Designed. An eye ball ? Designed.

    How did fish live before it adapted it's gills ? If you study science with an open mind you'll be drawn to the creator. Evolutionist argue against design using arguments they designed.
    test
  8. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Dna

    Evolutionist claim evidence from molecular biology (DNA). They say Darwin speculated that all forms of life are related. They teach the kids that this speculation has been verified because of DNA sequences. There is nothing about DNA that has helped verify evolution. DNA is the most complicated molecule in the universe. One DNA strand is about 6 or 7 feet long. An average person has 50 trillion cells in their body, each of those contain 46 DNA strands (gametes have 23). IF you took all the DNA out of your body it would fill about two table spoons. But, if you unwound it and stretched it out and tied them all together, this really complex tight molecule would stretch out to to the moon and back 5 million round trips. Out of two table spoons.

    [​IMG]

    It has the most complicated code in the history of the world. If you typed out the code in your DNA and when you got done typing you'd have enough books to fill the grand canyon 40 times over. Get that grand canyon completely filled with books 40 times, then condense it into computer CDs or something, ...but when your done it has to fit into two table spoons.

    God did that.

    From conception to birth the baby adds 15,000 cell per minute to it's body. Each on more complex than a space shuttle. How would you like to be in charge of a factory that is supplying 15,000 spaces shuttles a minute ? The probability of one DNA arranging by chance has been calculated to be 10^119,000 power. That' a big number when you consider the entire visible universe is 10^28 power in diameter in inches. Humans can't comprehend that. It's like filling up space with pennies and painting just one red...then giving a blind man only one shot to find that red penny. Wrap your brain around that.

    DNA does not prove evolution.

    DNA only shows how complex life is

    This is how evolutionist group the life trees...it's baised on whatever they want to base it on. I'll make my own family tree,

    Penicillin only has two chromosomes. Fruit flies have eight. So by this model, I assume and think penicillin evolved from a fruit fly. Then it evolved into a tomato, because it has 12 chromosomes, or a hose fly because they're twins, they both have 12 (it's hard to tell the difference). Then slowly over millions of years, they got some more chromosomes and became a pea, because they have 14 chromosomes. Then it evolved into a bee because here you can see the similarities. Bee, Pea. They rhyme. so they are closer than we thought. Then, very slowly it evolved into lettuce because it has 18 chromosomes, and over millions of years, finally, triplets were born: A possum, a red wood tree and a kidney bean because they all have 22 chromosomes. The average scientist cannot tell them apart.

    Then slowly, a million more years we evolved into a human. And we have 46 chromosomes. If we can just get two more, we'd be a tobacco plant because it has 48. Someday we might get enough to be a carp at 100. Then maybe someday a fern at 480 chromosomes

    This is just as "scientific" as what happens today.

    *
    There are 20 kinds of amino acids. They make up proteins. But they teach that this fact supports that all life came from a common ancestor. No, that fact supports all life has a common designer. I bet you could go to the library and see that all the books contain the same basic 26 letters. Don't they ?

    Yup, that proves everything evolved from morris code. No, that proves that it's the code you use to write English. And the 20 amino acids is the code you use to write proteins. God did it that way so we can eat something other than ourselves. A tan cow can eat the green grass, so it can get the white milk to make yellow butter, so I can get my brown hair. If God did not make it the same way, the same 20 amino acids, then we cloud not digest other things.

    Think about it.

    They tell the kids the human and the chimp are related, their DNA is 96% similar and that proves that we all evolved from a common ancestor. Dr. Barney Maddox, the worlds leading genome researcher said,

    The difference between chimps and humans is actually now discovered to be greater at 95% similarity instead of 96.8%. The difference between humans and chimps is greater than they thought.

    Understanding how something works is not evidence you know about the organization. There are 1,000s of difference between chimps and us, millions, and only a few similarities. So what ? They teach and think the percentage of similarity proves something. Well, let me then tell you some I've being doing. I've got a 34 million dollar grant from my school to prove evolution:

    I discovered that clouds are 100% water. And water melons are 97% water. Only a 3% difference. That proves water melons evolve from clouds. Jelly fish are 98% water and so are snow cones. That proves they evolved.
    test
  9. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    vestigal organs "artifacts"

    Kids will be taught in school that our appendix is vestigial. That we don't need it anymore. That's a lie. Your appendix is apart of your immune system. You need it. It's true that you can live without your right arm, but that does not prove you don't need it. The appendix is one of the sites where immune response are initiated. Appendix removal also increases a persons susceptibility to leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, cancer of the colon and cancer of the ovaries.

    You can live without both your eyes too, that still does not prove you don't need them.

    Evolutionists teach that whales have a vestigial pelvis. they say many organisms retain traces of their evolutionary history. For example, they whale retains pelvic and leg bones as useless vestiges. What are they talking about ? They teach also that Bossy the cow evolved from a whale. They say the whales pelvis has no purpose, that they have hind limb bones with no function.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Just imagine the whale walking around..it's true ? lmao. I tried and cannot imagine it. They say this is evidence for having a four legged land dwelling mammal as an ancestor. That is not true. Those little bone are apart of the whales reproductive system. Whales are pretty big. Those 'vestiges; support different muscles. They cannot reproduce without these little bones. It has noting to do with walking on land, but everything to do with getting baby whales. Evolutionists are real ignorant of whale anatomy or they just don't care because they have nothing else to replace it with.

    There are no vestigial organs and if there were, that would be the opposite of evolution. The whale did not evolve from any animal, if descended from the first whale God made. The Ambulocetus found to support whale evolution was pure imagination. Only a few little bones were found. They can make up all kinds of stories from a few bones. That is sure.

    They also teach that snakes have 'rudimentary hind legs'

    [​IMG]

    Snakes have tiny claws with a bone inside. Those are not hind legs. These little claws are used during mating. Snakes don't have arms, And they can't talk either. It has nothing to do with walking on land. It has to do with getting baby snakes.

    They also teach humans have a tail bone of no apparent use. But there are really nine muscles that attach to the tail bone and with out that, you cannot preform certain things. I won't tell you what they are lol

    Textsbooks teach,

    They teach man used to have a tail and lost it, because we did not need it ? Have you ever thought how handy a tail would be ?
    test
  10. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    bacteria mutations

    They teach that humans evolved from bacteria 4.5 billion years ago

    [​IMG]

    Grandpa ^

    *
    The little tiny hair on a bacteria is attached to a motor in the skin of the bacteria. It's very, very tiny. A real small motor. They are so tiny that 8 million of them would fit in the cross section of an average human hair.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    And that motor turns 100,000 RPM. I've worked on KC 135-T tankers that had engines that spun at 18,000 RPMs. How would you like an airplane engine that spins at 100,000 RPM ?

    The books say humans evolved from bacteria that lived 4.5 billion years ago. Really ? Bacteria can swim through it's world the equivalent of a man swimming 60 MPH through peanut butter. The fastest human can swim 4 or 5 miles per hour through water. Sign these bacteria up for the 2012 London Olympics. We are getting worse not better. Bacteria are incredibly complex. Complexity demands a designer, whether you like it or not. We evolved from this ?

    Some how evolutionists think that all you got to do is get all the molecules together then add energy then you got life. Let's put a frog in a blender and turn it on. You'll have frog shake and all the molecules in place to make one frog. Now add some energy. Put the blender on ' chop; leave it on for a million years, ...nuke it, microwave it, zap it with jumper cables...do something. How long will it take to reassemble the frog ? It will not work.

    They teach that if it is smaller it is simpler: uni celled organisms. A paramecium is single celled but it is not simple. One paramecium is way more complex than than an entire metropolitan city. And you can put thousands of these in a drop of water. Small is not simpler. Smaller is more complex. A micro chip exist today that is smaller than an ant's head. And that can process every single letter of the Bible 200 times...a minute.

    *
    To advance their view, the evolutionist have long pointed to mutations with beneficial effects. The most common example given: mutations sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics (germ killing drugs). And so, the argument goes if mutations can make bacteria stronger they must be able to do the same for other creatures. Dr. Spetner points out that this is biased on a misunderstanding, for the mutations that cause resistance to antibiotics still involve information loss.

    To destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to the part of the bacterial called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause structural deformity in ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacteria is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial (for the moment), it still constitutes as a loss in genetic information, not a gain. NO evolution has taken place; the bacteria are not stronger. In fact, under normal conditions with no antibiotic present they are weaker than their non mutated cousins.

    Still, they can become resistant to misshapen ribosomes, but they will never evolve resistance to fire. There have been no cases were evolution has been observed in the lab. In each case, the bacteria or microbes are still bacteria or microbes. Some populations might have slightly larger cells, but this information already exist and is a good example of variation or it is a harmful mutation interpreted good in a controlled population outside it's natural world. It will not evolve into a fish. No matter how long you isolate them in controlled conditions with unnatural settings that are not a real simulation of it's nature.
    test
  11. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    A-kr dating

    Potassium Argon Dating (K-AR). Does it work ? Does it prove the earth is millions, billions of years old ? Potassium is one of the elements on the periodic table of elements and it slowly decays and turns into Argon, which is a gas. So, the theory is that when a volcano erupts it melts the rock, turns to lava and comes out spreading down the volcano slope and the gas would escape. Because it is now liquid.

    And as Potassium slowly decays to Argon, which is a gas remember, and if it melts the rock it should reset the clock to zero. So they think they can tell how old lava flows are, or ash flows (ash beds) because there should be no Argon in them that the clock is reset and it should be just Potassium. This sounds good in theory but in practice when you actually test it, it does not work.

    It's true Potassium decays to Argon, and has a half life of about 1.3 billion years, it very slowly decays. Of course nobody watched it fro 1.3 billion years but only 3 or 4 days in the labortory...and they estimated how long it would take to disappear. But lets assume the half life is right, it would be quite an assumption, no argument here. The fact is, when you actually test it like the lava flows that were tested in New Zealand, where potassium Argon dates were given for a 1975 volcano eruption. The dates given were way off, a quarter of a million years old was determined. Yet the New Zealand volcano erupted in 1975. In 1949 was another lava flow, yet K-AR gave an age of a little less than a quarter of a million years old.

    Planetary Seminars Abstracts 48th Annual Meeting p. 167

    We don't know if it actually resets the clock, in truth. A Canadian Journal of Earth Science Vol. 16 says,

    Ah, so here the truth comes out. Things are really dated by the geological column (the evolution bible), not by just Potassium dating or any other dating method. In nature magazine back in April 1970, they have another example where they had dating of a layer of ash called the KBS TUFF (named after Kay Behrensmeyer). This layer of ash was dated between 212-230 million years old.

    What they will do, if you look at the charts, they will have different layers of ash and then they will assign dates to volcanic eruptions lava flows etc... If you find a fossil between two layers you can guess how old it was based upon the potassium Argon date of the fossil above and of the one below. Sounds good, right ? It does not work. They bracket the sample by what is called the Even Horizon, they'll say a layer of ash from a volcanic eruption covered a country side for example, and any fossils found below that layer have to be older, any fossils found above have to be younger. Sounds good, but it does not work that way.

    Richard Leaky found a skull (#KMN ER 1470) under the KBS TUFF. It was a modern human but was dated 2.9 million years old. Everyone was saying the TUFF was 200 million years old but here they found a normal human skull. Now they have a problem. SO they redated the ash layers in the KBS TUFF. They would never had re dated it if they had not found that human skull. They redated the ash layer and took 10 samples and got numbers from .5 million to 2.64 million.

    First, we need to point out that is way down from 212 million and still that is a 500% error. It does not work. A 500% error ? They would laugh you out of a court of law if you placed this as evidence.

    It's interesting to look at the inflation of the age of the earth. Back in 1770, George Buffon said the earth was 70,000 years old (Principles of Zoology 1996 p. 151)

    In 1905 the text books said that the age of the earth was officially 2 billion years old (News Week July 20 1998 p.50)

    In 1960s when they went to the moon, they said the moon and earth are 3.5 billion years old (The Minneapolis Tribune Aug. 25, 1969) This number was arrived at by Potassium Argon Dating.

    Today the kids are taught it's 4.6 billion years old. The earth is getting older at the rate of 21 million years per year lol, interesting. That's 40 years per minute. Silly. Here are some things to consider about Potassium Argon Dating or any dating method:

    1. Wild dates are frequently obtained. They are not always consistent,getting all kinds of numbers. They pick ones that they want based on the preconceived idea, which is based on the geological column, which is dumb.

    2. Dates that don't fit the theory are routinely dumped, rejected and tossed out. This is not how science works. If it works, it ought to work every time, being testable, demonstrable and observable.

    3. It is obvious that only dating method is based on the ASSUMPTIONS that the original content can be known, that the decay rate never changes, and that samples have never been contaminated.

    4. All of these decay rates are based on a decline, down slide and not an uphill slope/slide. Potassium decays to Argon, Carbon 14 decays etc...every thing is decaying, it's the opposite of evolution. And they need something that is improving rather. This all goes back to the concept of the 6 different kinds of evolution, and you have to have chemical evolution, where chemicals go higher on the periodic table, not lower.


    **

    Mount Etna erupted in Sicily back in 122 B.C. It was a dated eruption, and there is historical evidence for it. When Potassium Argon dated it, it was 1/4 of a million years old. In 1801 Hawaii lava flow gave a potassium Argon age of 1.6 million years old. It does not work.

    Basalt from another Hiawian lava flow, Mt. Kilaliea Lki in 1959, gave an K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old.

    Basalt from a different Sicily valcano gave an K-AR age of 700,000 years old, and it only erupted in 1964. In 1972 the same volcano erupted again and it then gave a date of 350,000 years old (Impact # 307 Jan. 1999)

    The lava from Mount St. Helen's right after it erupted in 1980, it was brand new lava dome, they knew the age of it. yet the K-AR dating gave an age of 350,000 to 2.8 million years old using varying dating methods. This is coming from the same rocks, from a lava flow they knew was only 20 years old.

    When you date a sample from known age it does not work. When you date a sample of unknown age it is ASSUMED TO WORK. That is not common sense. Wild dates are found all the time, they pick the numbers that they want and reject anything they upsets the theory. All Dating Methods are based on many, many assumptions, just like the entire theory of evolution.

    The bible tells us to seek knowledge:

    I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek wisdom, and the reasons of things and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness; Ecclesiastes 7:25


    and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear I Peter 3:15
    test
  12. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    carbon dating

    This is how Carbon Dating is supposed to work: Carbon dating was not invented until 1949, in the last 60 years. So, when they started telling the kids the earth was billions of years old back in 1830, they did not tell them that because of Carbon dating. They never thought of Carbon dating, its never been herd of. Why were they teaching the earth was billions of years old 180 years ago ? Only because they needed billions of years to make there theory look good. That's why. If I told you a frog could turn into a prince if you kissed it, you'd say that's just a fairy tale. But if I told you a frog could turn into a prince if you wait billions of years, ahhh maybe so...ahh. Now it becomes believable to kids. No. It's still a fairy tale. What a stupid Idea.

    The geological column is where it all started. The earth was divided up into layers. Each layer was assigned a name and an index fossil. Then they, to prove these layers are old, picked numbers out of the clear blue sky and any dating method that comes along now HAS TO MATCH the geological column, or it is rejected. (the column is the evolution bible).

    Only because the column has been taught for 180 years now. So surely it's true ? No. Just because it has been taught for 180 years does not make it true, but this is the logic scientist have. We know that the geological column is established so all dates have to match this or we toss them all out. And the testing will continue until it does match. They might have to test a sample 5 or 6 times until the get the number they want. How do they know any of them are right then ? If you're getting a different number every time.

    O'rourke, J.E - Pragmatism Materialism in Stratigraphy- American Journal of Science Vol. 276

    Ageriderk V. - Fossils Frustrations - New Scientist Vol 100

    They don't date the fossils by Carbon dating, they date them by their geological column position.

    Here is what happens: The earths atmosphere is about 100 miles thick. A space shuttle to get outside its friction has to get up about 100 miles out of the air. If you look at the atmosphere, it has different layers. It has a heat sink, where it gets very cold up about 7-8 miles up, like 80-100 below zero. The earths atmosphere contains mostly nitrogen (78%), 21% oxygen and a little Co2 for the plants to breath. And there is a tiny bit of Radio Active Carbon (C14), about .0000765%.

    This radio active Carbon C14 is different then regular Carbon. Its produced by radiation striking the atmosphere. Sun light strikes the atmosphere, slaps the nitrogen around and turns it into Carbon 14. It all starts by the sun light in the atmosphere. About 21 pounds of Carbon 14 is produced every year. And that is spread out all over the world. If I told you there is 21 pounds of gold, but spread out all over the globe, would you even look for it ? You won't find it. Real tiny amounts.

    If you look at the periodic table, Carbon and Nitrogen are right next to each other. Nitrogen has an atomic weight of 14.01 and Carbon has a weight of 12.02. But if the sun light slaps the nitrogen around it will knock a few things off of it and it becomes Carbon 14. So, it still weighs as much as the Nitrogen but now it's considered a Carbon. It's called radio active, which means it does not listen to the radio (lol), It's just unstable and it's going to break apart.

    Like 3 guys dating the same girl, that relationship is not going to last forever, something will go wrong. Carbon 14 is unstable and it does not like being Carbon 14, it wants to get out the situation. So it breaks down about half of it will break down on a statistical average, half of it will fall apart every 5,730 years. It is doing this on a purely random procedure, you got a pile of molecules and you will never know which one is going to fall apart.

    Statistics tell us about half will fall apart every 5,700 years, roughly., while it is Carbon 14 it is floating around in the atmosphere; like the rest of the Carbon...and it latches on to oxygen as Carbon often does and becomes Carbon dioxide. They hook up and happily float around in the atmosphere. The plants are breathing in Co2. Animals come along and eat the plants. So, the only way Carbon 14 gets into the living world is from being produced by the sun striking the atmosphere, plants then breath it in and animals eat the plants.

    Probably in your life time you have eaten plants or animals that have eaten plants. Every thing we eat is from one of those two sources The plants are absorbing Co2 some of it is radio active, so if the atmosphere contains 000765% it is assumed the plants also have .0000765%. Probably a reasonable assumption and nobody argues with them. It needs to be pointed out though, that this is one of DOZENS of assumptions that can enter in and really mess up things like Carbon Dating. So, probably you have .000765% Carbon in you, because you've been eating these plants or animals that has been eating plants. Probably it's all balanced in nature.

    When the plant or animal dies it stops taking in more Carbon 14. When it stops breathing. Now, what ever it had is going to decay. It was decaying while it was alive, but now there is nothing to replace it. So what they do is they compare the amount of C14 in the fossils with the amount in the atmosphere. They say wow that fossil only got half as much, therefore it's been dead for one half-life (5,700). Because it continues to decay after it died, but now it cannot be replaced. So while it was alive, it had about .000765%, if it only gots .0003825% it has been dead for one half life, or two half lives, or 3 half lives etc...

    In theory it never goes to zero, but for practical purposes, you can't measure beyond a certain amount, you'd run out of stuff to measure. It goes from a half to a 1/4 to a 1/8 to a 1/16 to not enough to measure.

    test
  13. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    carbon dating 2

    Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of the low-c14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationist, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in strata with recent Carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old[/QUOTE] www. icr.org Think about what this means.

    The text books will tell you coal formed 250 million years ago, in the Carboniferous era. And when they test coal it still has carbon 14. How is that possible ? Think about what this means. If all the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared in say 30,000-50,000, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal ?

    I got an idea, it is not 1/4 million years old. Oh, they don't like that answer. They;ll keep searching until they find there answer because they don't want that one, for sure. And diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them. It is not possible to contaminate one of those. Diamonds are the hardest substance we have. So, how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds ? And when did diamonds form really, honestly now. Think about this.

    **

    The Carbon Dating assumptions have to be pointed out. They'll say we know carbon decay is at a certain rate and so we know it only gots half as much, it's half as old. There are assumptions that mess up everything.

    If I said we are going to fill a barrel with water, and I put a hose on the top of the barrel and start to flood it. I then put two holes in the barrel at the bottom. While you are putting it in, water is leaking out. The earth's atmosphere is kind of like this barrel. It is always getting brand new carbon 14, 21 pounds a year being put in. And it is always leaking out by decay. So, the question is how long would it take before it reached a equilibrium ? With a barrel you can actually use math and calculate the amount of water per minute going in and calculate a certain amount leaking out...and you can find when it will reach equilibrium, and where. This can all be calculated. And with the atmosphere, the question is when will it reach equilibrium ? So, the guys who invented carbon dating in the late 1940s said I wonder about the earth's atmosphere reaching equilibrium. They did a bunch of studies on this question. Who knows how they got to this though.

    If we take a new planet earth, created it from scratch, and got it spinning around the sun, how long would it take to reach this equilibrium point in the atmosphere, where the production rate and destruction rate is the same ? They determined it would take about 30,000-50,000 years to reach equilibrium. Not sure on how they did all this. Then they made two mistakes.

    1. they said, we know the earth is millions of years old (it is not)
    2. then they ignored the equilibrium problem because we would have past that 30,000-50,000 years ago. The earth has not reached equilibrium yet.


    They have discovered the earth has yet to reach equilibrium today, Radio Carbon is still forming, 30-40% faster then it is decaying. Now, think about this. If radio Carbon is still forming faster then it's decaying, that means the earth is less than 30,000 years old, number one. Number two you can't carbon date anything. because you would have to know when it lived so you could calculate when it lived (lol). You would already have to know when it lived to know how much Carbon 14 it was breathing at that time. It does not work (the #1 assumption is the amount of c14 in the atmosphere has always been the same; has reached equilibrium).

    If an animal is still alive it should give you about 16 clicks on your Geiger Counter, per minute, per gram. If you are only getting 8, you're been through one half life, 4 clicks 2 half lives etc... This is called the calibration curve. In theory it sounds like it should work. But there are several real obvious assumptions, how do they not see this is beyond common sense.

    Suppose you walk into a room and saw a burning candle on a table and I want you to tell me when was it lit. You find out it's 7 inches tall. That won't tell you anything....so now we gotta measure how fast it's burning. So, we measure the candle awhile and get a stop watch and get it down to the billionth of a second. SO, we find that the candle has been burning an inch an hour.

    Here are the two facts: it's burning on inch an hour and it is 7 inches tall. When was it lit ? Nobody can figure it out. Unless you make some assumptions.

    Assumption #1: How tall was the candle assumption will be made. Assumption #2 Has it always burned at the same rate assumption must be made...but really, neither of these can be known.

    If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon can be measured, the amount of decay can be determined. Nobody argues with this. How much was in it when it lived, has it all ways decayed at the same rate ? They can't know. Has it been contaminated stetting in the ground all these 'millions' of years. There is no way to know these things. If the earth had a canopy of water about the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice, that would of blocked a lot of radiation from the sun which would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming. SO animals that lived before the flood wold of lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with. Maybe none, but certainly less.

    Summery:

    assumptions of Carbon Dating:

    1. Atmospheric C-14 is in equilibrium
    2. Decay rate remains constant
    3. Initial amounts of C-14 can be known
    4. The sample being tested has not been contaminated for thousands of years.

    5. The geologic column can be used as a base to calibrate the C-14 dates



    A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

    -Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.

    -Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old.

    -A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.

    -One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. Talk about a slow birth lol

    -Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first

    -Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old
    test
  14. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    good job, coup. you weren't kidding when you said it would be long.

    i finished reading it. some of these talking points i am actually already familiar with. others i need to research. i'll address the scientific claims within when i have a cohesive rebuttal for the argument as a whole. i could go point by point starting with the points i already know how to address, if you prefer, but i feel that might take forever to do it that way.

    i won't bother with the biblical 'predictions' or non-scientific points. i won't address the flood scenario except to show how it isn't a real viable alternative for many of the geological points. the only reason the flood hasn't been refuted outright is cause creationists refuse to draw a geological boarder (pre flood, post flood) for it.

    but well done. this should keep me busy for a bit.
    test
  15. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Do you still believe in evolution ?
    test
  16. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    yea.. i'm pretty confident that you've been misled by creationist literature.
    test
  17. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    As long as you know it takes faith and a belief...You can't, with an open mind, still think there is a geologic column.

    lmao "creationist literature"
    What do you call evolution "literature" ? Science ? Or fantasy ?
    Thank you for the props on the thread. I look forward to what you come up with to show otherwise, if you do at all.
    test
  18. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i will show you exactly what i mean.
    test
  19. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    test
  20. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i'm wondering how to do this. i want to give a more detailed justification of the lines of evidence i initially provided, and i also want to address the counter points you made here. problem being there's quite a bit of individual references and claims within your argument and it will take me time to look at each one individually; also i don't want this all to become so lengthy that nobody can read it.

    so i need time to organize your points into categories and then address them categorically, keeping my comments brief and substantive with little to no filler, and providing references for further reading where desired. i quite doubt that anyone else here is taking this as seriously as we are, but at the very least i want you to know exactly from where my reasoning is derived and if anybody else is curious about the evolution debate i want them to be able to look into my stance themselves without getting intimidated or bored to death in the process.

    you said you need a vacation from this place? cause this might take me a bit of time. if you want a break, i can probably have a detailed counter-argument up within a week's time. i have shit to do tomorrow but i can begin working on it after that. i've already organized each post into the basic relevant scientific claims made within. now the real work begins with analyzing each claim.

    either way, let me know. we can do it that way, or i can go post by post if you prefer. i just think the core argument will get derailed by discussion (and missing the complete set of relevant facts) if i present it little by little.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)