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.
Thanks again for bringing up the photos, I was able to track this book down: Evolution: The Grand Experiment: Vol. 2 - Living Fossils. Yes, it seems like all that is ever presented in books or media is the topic of macro evolved species. Indeed, there are many, many that have remained unchanged for millions of years...good for them
Well, you know as well as I how he did it. He started with the viewpoint that evolution is a myth. After that, it's easy to find "evidence" supporting your theory. And picking and choosing among millions of fossils just made things easier.
I am an ex-evolutionist. I know its hard for someone like you to swallow that your beliefs in an accidental world (evolution) could actually make such a decision but I did so on the basis of the evidence; or perhaps I should say on the 'lack of evidence' for the theory. It isn't even a good theory.
I just revealed the tip of the ice berg today. Much more is coming.
I am an ex-evolutionist. I know its hard for someone like you to swallow that your beliefs in an accidental world (evolution) could actually make such a decision but I did so on the basis of the evidence; or perhaps I should say on the 'lack of evidence' for the theory. It isn't even a good theory.
I just revealed the tip of the ice berg today. Much more is coming.
No such thing as an evolutionist. That's why we are having a hard time understanding your ex-evolutionist.
You fail to understand what evolution is.
In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Let me digress here and finish the evening with a matter I brought up on another thread. I think it is of great importance:
What you are looking at are red blood cells from the soft tissue of a T-Rex examined and discovered by Dr. Mary Schweitzer of the University of Montana. She stunned the scientific world with her discovery and since then the scientific community has been trying to figure this out. Could soft tissue/red blood cells survive for 60-70 million yrs since the extinction of T-Rex's?
What is disgusting is that the scientists don't wish to question their philosophical paradigm (the dating methods) of evolution; they question the nature of the evidence or pose some way-out reason as to why or how the soft tissue could even be examined after such eons of time. Folks, even a 10,000 yr survival time would be pushing it hard. There is no way any soft tissue could remain in such old specimens. It is the evolutionary time frame that should be questioned and not the evidence or the method of examination.
Last edited by Calypsis4; 09-25-2009 at 08:04 PM..
If you even use the word 'trolling' again I will ignore your posts from now on. Clear?
There are no 'examples' of evolution. Evolution does not exist. They only things that my opponents can reveal are photos of the varieties within the kind. There are many and various kinds of organisms; dogs, bears, flowers, insects, etc. But they are all limited in the changes that are possible by the built-in barriers that God placed in the genetic code of every living organism. Change is admitted but not a change from one kind to another. Nature never does that.
Really and how many times does genetic material have to change before they are completely different?
Can you explain to me they process that stop the genetic material from changing too much?
What is this physical limit, and why can some DNA change, and not others?
Even if there was evidence to explain these flaws in your argument, it wouldn't explain why we are genetically related to every known living organism.
"The only way fossils could ever disprove evolution, is if every fossil every found was dated back to the same date.
Clearly this is not the case."
You aren't telling the truth.
Nice artwork but I am not giving you artwork. I am giving you direct observational evidence.
Here's more:
The Coelacanth was once said by evolutionists to be 'extinct'. But in 1938 a fishing expedition off the coast of Africa caught one. Several have been caught since then. But notice that even after 'millions' of yrs no evident evolutionary change can be observed in this marine creature.
Your only rebuttal is to call me a liar?
Then claim that the image of the time line, which every other image of every other time line is, just "artwork".
You are no better then a child who covers his/her ears and starts yelling when he/she does not want to hear the truth.
No such thing as an evolutionist. That's why we are having a hard time understanding your ex-evolutionist.
You fail to understand what evolution is.
In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
" No such thing as an evolutionist."
Moderator cut: inappropriate
My guess is that I was DEFENDING evolution before you were born. How old are you?
Last edited by Miss Blue; 09-28-2009 at 01:36 PM..
Let me digress here and finish the evening with a matter I brought up on another thread. I think it is of great importance:
What you are looking at are red blood cells from the soft tissue of a T-Rex examined and discovered by Dr. Mary Schweitzer of the University of Montana. She stunned the scientific world with her discovery and since then the scientific community has been trying to figure this out. Could soft tissue/red blood cells survive for 60-70 million yrs since the extinction of T-Rex's?
What is disgusting is that the scientists don't wish to question their philosophical paradigm (the dating methods) of evolution; they question the nature of the evidence or pose some way-out reason as to why or how the soft tissue could even be examined after such eons of time. Folks, even a 10,000 yr survival time would be pushing it hard. There is no way any soft tissue could remain in such old specimens. It is the evolutionary time frame that should be questioned and not the evidence or the method of examination.
Re hydratedred blood cells.
The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were re hydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone. Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved.
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.
Shot full of holes
