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.
So there's evidence to back up the Earth is 6,000 years old? How about that the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around the Earth (which the bible states)?
Is there evidence to suggest that it's possible for an individual to fit between 2.8 and 3.2 billion species from across the globe onto a ship, while providing each species with the habitable environment they need to sustain life for an extended period of time?
Is there evidence to suggest that every human on the planet is descendent from two individuals (usually portrayed as white) named Adam & Eve, and had two boys, who ultimately had to procreate with their mother because there is no mention of other women?
If there is evidence for all of these grandiose, highly improbable, and scientifically inaccurate biblical assertions, please, provide them.
The Bible does not say the earth is flat. The Bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth. Care to show me in the Bible where it states that?
Like so many that come here, you have ideas that are false, and based on no facts.
Evolutionest use to tell us that soft tissue would never be found in dinosaur bones, because soft tissue would be gone before the passage of 10,000 years. Yet the Bible indicates that dinosaurs walked the earth only 2600 years ago. Just in recent times, dinosaur bones are being found to not only contain soft tissue, but stretchable blood cells as well. Now the believers in Evolution are telling us that soft tissue and these stretchable blood cells can last 75 million years. GIVE ME A BREAK. Now rather draw the conclusion that the bones are from the more recent past which would agree with the Bible. They, the believers in Evolution to protect their theory would have us believe that soft tissue will last almost forever. You can get some of the people to believe this nonsense, but the Bible got it right the first time, and until they had to change their theory on soft tissue to agree with their theory of Evolution, the orginal belief on soft tissue was also right.
What is also being ignored is ancient art that is being found all over the world that depicts dinosaurs that are accurate in it's depictions of such beast. We know what dinosaurs look like today from recovered remains, yet early man did not have the reconstructions as we do. So, how was early man able to draw such early pictures of them, in such accurate detail? Also, the Bible claimed that dinosaurs had skin that was made of scales, only in the most recent days have we discovered this because of a mummified found dinosaur that was found here in the states. Yet how did the Bible know what the skin of a dinosaur was made up of, when the Book of Job where it speaks of this was only written less than 3000 years ago?
Let's face it - science and religion are two incompatible entities. Either you'll remain ignorant by subscribing to teachings from thousands of years ago (when people had little understanding of the world around them), or you'll accept present scientific evidence (which always has empirical, tangible evidence to back it up).
Religion has nothing to back it up. So, you can have as much "faith" as you want, but the reality is that, unless religion provides contemporary evidence (which so far it has not, while being wrong about every assertion it has made), then it automatically loses to scientific reason.
Well the Bible tells us that dinosaurs walked the earth less then 3,000 years ago. Evolutionest told us we would never find soft tissue in dinosaur bones because that tissue would not last more than 10,000 years. Recently they have discovered soft tissue in dinosaur bones with stretchable blood cells. Now Evolutionest are saying, "Well, I guess that soft tissue can last up to 75 million years." GIVE ME A BREAK. The Bible in the Book of Job has told us that the skin of a dinosaur was make up of scales, yet science did not know this until they discovered a mummified one a few years back. So tell me, how did the Bible know this 2600 years ago, when science just discovered this as of late? The Bible, it's history, it's prophecies, have a lot to back it up, yet few have taken the time to consider what is written there.
Science also ignores the ancient art from early man, and some of that art depicts early man coexisting with dinosaurs that are accurately dipicted in that art. How could early man even know what a dinosaur look like unless they had actually seen one. Here again, science ignores these depictions, because they do not agree with their theory of Evolution. The evidence is there, it is todays science, that are the true believers in blind faith. And it is the science of today that remains in ignorance, because they imbrace a failed Theory.
The smell of troll is quite strong here, i do believe that a thread to discuss this already exists so why hijack this one? Da earth is 4.5bly old and the soft tissue indeed can last longer than we thought. The troll may cling to the belief that its impossible for soft tissue to last long but without explaining away the other evidence such as the Ice core caps, the troll has nothing.
My dear friend, i invite you once again to substantiate your claims as opposed to just posting them:
So the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and soft tissue was not suppose to last past 10,000 years. Well that theory went out the window, and I doubt that the 4.5 billion will hold up either. But it appears you guys will eat anything they feed you. So I guess you will have to see what they feed you tommorow. At least the Book I follow does not change, and it's truth only is confirmed, and needs no ajustments.
Not quite. Species inhabiting different ecological niches will not compete with each other. It's incredibly simple as saying that they are like cousins to us who branched off and evolved in a different way
I think you should actually read what evolution is. In evolution there are no needs nor wants.
The very definition of evolution is that a lifeform will adapt, change, and improve. The improved lifeforms SHOULD take over...like Homo sapiens did from its ancestors.
Like I said, there no longer ARE any Homo erectus or Homo habilis...because we've supplanted them.
So the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and soft tissue was not suppose to last past 10,000 years.
sigh, here is how it breaks down:
What you have shown-Soft tissue has been found to be older than 10k years
What you have not shown-earth is young
Of course you assume that the soft tissue can't last longer than 10k years. I, as well as scientists think otherwise. So who is right? well why don't we look at what the other evidence points to? because the other evidence points to an old earth.
So i say once again, are you willing to discuss the other evidence which you so adamantly claimed to be in your favour back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Well that theory went out the window, and I doubt that the 4.5 billion will hold up either. But it appears you guys will eat anything they feed you. So I guess you will have to see what they feed you tommorow.
I'll have a bowl of cereal tomorrow thank you. Or do you feel that "you are all wrong! you'll see" is better than actual evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
At least the Book I follow does not change, and it's truth only is confirmed, and needs no ajustments.
And whenever it is false, you just change reality to suit the delusion. At least some people have the sense not to take everything literally
Again:
Ice cores disproves creationism
Radiometric dating disproves creationism
Really old trees disprove creationism
Calcite deposits disproves creationism
Heck, even God herself with supernovae exploding powers disproves creationism
The very definition of evolution is that a lifeform will adapt, change, and improve. The improved lifeforms SHOULD take over...like Homo sapiens did from its ancestors.
Like I said, there no longer ARE any Homo erectus or Homo habilis...because we've supplanted them.
no no no. Species dont live in tiny boxes. Species will migrate from place to place for a myriad of reasons such as the search for food and find new habitats with food and territory. Birds that migrate to the Galapagos and speciate will have no effect on the other birds that stayed in the continent. Only when 2 species are forced to compete will the better adapted one mke the other extinct.
Jesus H Christ man, even answer in genesis admits that this is a stupid thing to say
The very definition of evolution is that a lifeform will adapt, change, and improve. The improved lifeforms SHOULD take over...like Homo sapiens did from its ancestors.
Organisms evolve in response to a specific environment. If a population is split so that they end up in two different locations, they can coexist since they won't be directly competing with each other. See ring species as one particular example of this.
Quote:
Like I said, there no longer ARE any Homo erectus or Homo habilis...because we've supplanted them.
And we also have wolves and domesticated dogs existing at the same time. They've evolved to thrive in different environments so they are no longer competing with each other directly. Thus, we know that there's no reason to assume that one species will wipe out everything else they're related to, so you're making a hasty generalization from one single example.
Adapt to a specific environment. If a population is split so that they end up in two different locations, they can coexist. See ring species as one particular example of this.
And we also have wolves and domesticated dogs existing at the same time. They've evolved to thrive in different environments so they are no longer competing with each other directly. Thus, we know that there's no reason to assume that one species will wipe out everything else they're related to, so you're making a hasty generalization from one single example.
Canis familiaris is not the same as Canis lupus. There is no reason that BOTH species could not have existed from the start.
What you have shown-Soft tissue has been found to be older than 10k years
What you have not shown-earth is young
Of course you assume that the soft tissue can't last longer than 10k years. I, as well as scientists think otherwise. So who is right? well why don't we look at what the other evidence points to? because the other evidence points to an old earth.
So i say once again, are you willing to discuss the other evidence which you so adamantly claimed to be in your favour back then.
I'll have a bowl of cereal tomorrow thank you. Or do you feel that "you are all wrong! you'll see" is better than actual evidence
And whenever it is false, you just change reality to suit the delusion. At least some people have the sense not to take everything literally
Again:
Ice cores disproves creationism
Radiometric dating disproves creationism
Really old trees disprove creationism
Calcite deposits disproves creationism
Heck, even God herself with supernovae exploding powers disproves creationism
The soft tissue is 75 million years (older) than what they believed. Thats a big stretch for anyone to make, but not for a true believer in Evolution. Because anything no matter how far fetched can be, and will be believed, and without any supporting evidence. Because it supports their Theory.
It was the scientest who believed for years that soft tissue could only last that long, and then they quickly changed their belief when it got in the way of their theory of Evolution. Don't turn this around on me, it was your people that did this song and dance routine. And if these same people came back tomorrow and told you some other time frame you would believe that to. Because you are a yes person for the Theory of Evolution.
Old trees prove evolution? You mean the trees they find inbeded in strata that is millions of years old? Yeah, those trees must sure be old. LOL Trees they date in the thousands of years, while the strata they claim is millions of years old. I wonder how that million year old strata wraped itself around those thousand year old trees. LOL. Maybe it was strata made out of soft tissue from some of those 75 million year old dinosaur bones. LOL
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.
