Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What exactly is an animal "kind"? Do you honestly think evolution states that a dog with give birth to anything other than a dog? That's just silly and shows a huge misunderstanding of what evolution is.
Yes because according to evolution, some ancestor gave rise to chimp and human. That something was neither chimp nor human. That something was something else in the distant past. This some thing was something that lived in the water. Some type of bottom dwelling creature with a notochord.
Except for all the formations that were formed in arid and semi arid environments, such as deserts, evoporites, paleosols - along with associated features and remnants that could not form if associated with water or any cataclysm. Or formations that could not have formed in high energy environments such as reefs and chalks, etc. Flood Geology is no more than "folk science" dreamed up (literally) by SDA Ellen White developed by SDA George McCready Price, eventually revived by Henry Morris. It has never produced anything as a real science, and is utterly useless, since it is not reflected in the geology. YECs can't even agree on which formations are pre-or post-Flood, Some say all, some say only those above the C-T contact, some just the most upper strata. YECs are all over the board on this.
As are evolutionists, but you do not dismiss evolution on that fact alone, now do you?
Creation science may be folk science (science of the people) but evolution is historical science (A guess at the unknown past with disregard to the evidence).
As are evolutionists, but you do not dismiss evolution on that fact alone, now do you?
Creation science may be folk science (science of the people) but evolution is historical science (A guess at the unknown past with disregard to the evidence).
You think you understand evolution? I give up! One thing I do have to say is that I am amazed that you YEC people can cling to such outlandish beliefs, but you are certainly consistent in blindly dismissing anything and every thing that contradicts your view.
As are evolutionists, but you do not dismiss evolution on that fact alone, now do you?
We are talking about Geology, and all the formations throughout the geologic record that could not form in a water-born cataclysm, falsifying your claim that the entire geologic record was produced by The Flood.
Quote:
Creation science may be folk science (science of the people) but evolution is historical science (A guess at the unknown past with disregard to the evidence).
"Folk science" like alchemy. Sorry, again we are discussing Geology, which is only based on evidence. Flood Geology has never produced anything useful, and never will, since its claims are not reflected in the Geologic record. It simply hasn't worked.
We are talking about Geology, and all the formations throughout the geologic record that could not form in a catastophic water-born cataclysm.
"Folk science" like alchemy. Sorry, again we are discussing Geology, which is only based on evidence. Flood Geology has never produced anything useful, and never will, since its claims are not reflected in the Geologic record. It simply hasn't worked.
Excuse me, Geologist that are influenced more by the Uniformatarian time scale based on evolutionist ideas and not on the evidence of the geology itself.
Evolution has never produced anything useful either. So lets throw them both out of the classroom. Or relegate them to history class where they both belong, right? At least we wont be lying and calling evolution science.
Excuse me, Geologist that are influenced more by the Uniformatarian time scale based on evolutionist ideas and not on the evidence of the geology itself.
Geology is all about evidence. That's it. These features found in the geologic record that can not be formed in a water-born catastrophe, are irrelevent with any timescale. They would not exist at all, if a turbulant flood was dumping a hundred feet of sediment per day all around. You know, Geology is not dependent on evolution, eventhough geology happens to exhibit in the fossil record what evolution would have produced. This can be observed after each of the mass-extinction events. Evolution is not even considered when determining geologic timescales. Geochronology doesn't care about evolution. However, it is the other way around for the evolutionists. The evolutionist have only the times scales determined by the geologists. They have to play the hand that they are dealt, so to speak. The ancient age of the Earth was discovered well before evolution was even considered.
Quote:
Evolution has never produced anything useful either. So lets throw them both out of the classroom. Or relegate them to history class where they both belong, right? At least we wont be lying and calling evolution science.
Wow are you serious? Or are you trolling? I can't tell. Next time you get the flu or an infection, don't take your meds.
Yes because according to evolution, some ancestor gave rise to chimp and human. That something was neither chimp nor human. That something was something else in the distant past. This some thing was something that lived in the water. Some type of bottom dwelling creature with a notochord.
Yes because according to evolution, some ancestor gave rise to chimp and human. That something was neither chimp nor human. That something was something else in the distant past. This some thing was something that lived in the water. Some type of bottom dwelling creature with a notochord.
(A guess at the unknown past with disregard to the evidence).
OMG!!!! Are you freakin' kidding me??? You think evolution is disregard to evidence??? You are the one who is denying evidence!!
Something for your thoughts: You take the creation story literally, but consider this-there are two creation stories!! How do you know which is true?? Who wrote Genesis anyway? Have you ever considered the fact that whoever wrote it didn't have nearly as good of an understanding of science and creation as we do now. The writer probably didn't know what we know now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, my aching sides...
for not understanding evolution.
You think evolution is disregard to evidence??? You are the one who is denying evidence!!