Why The Fossil Record Does Not Support Evolution (living fossils)
Nov 3, 2014 21:44:22 #
Nov 4, 2014 00:47:49 #
Racmanaz wrote:
Rac, you keep shooting yourself in the foot. If the fossil record shows no changes in 23 to 345 million years(as claimed in the video), then the Earth must be very old........... :roll: :roll: :roll:Why The Fossil Record Does Not Support Evolution (living fossils)
Nov 4, 2014 01:00:07 #
user47602
Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
fossils are difficult to make, the body needs to be covered up with sediment fairly quickly after death... yes like after a flood. :roll: There are many, many holes in the evolutionary record.
...and the reason science is always changing is that it continually reflects our growing knowledge about creation..
oh and science does not even address the concept of God, so this epic battle you have set up in your mind between the atheist-evolutionists is really just a one-sided rant by creationists whose little fairy tale is being constantly disrupted by the ever-growing body of scientific knowledge... made by scientists totally unaware of the creationist war.
...and the reason science is always changing is that it continually reflects our growing knowledge about creation..
oh and science does not even address the concept of God, so this epic battle you have set up in your mind between the atheist-evolutionists is really just a one-sided rant by creationists whose little fairy tale is being constantly disrupted by the ever-growing body of scientific knowledge... made by scientists totally unaware of the creationist war.
Nov 4, 2014 01:31:25 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
slocumeddie wrote:
Rac, you keep shooting yourself in the foot. If the fossil record shows no changes in 23 to 345 million years(as claimed in the video), then the Earth must be very old........... :roll: :roll: :roll:
Well they have been wrong many times before, dating anything past 5,730 years is inaccurate, even inaccurate at 12 years. One instance of this is when dating the lava rocks from the cone of Mt St Helens 12 years after eruption, scientist aged those rocks from 365,000 years to 2.6 million years old. How can a 12 year old lava rock 12 years old be aged at 365,000 to 2.6 million years old?? This is one of many many errors in aging rocks and bones.
Nov 4, 2014 01:34:57 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
user47602 wrote:
fossils are difficult to make, the body needs to b... (show quote)
The war is from evolutionist more than it is from Creationists. Science has always refuted the evolutionary theory and that's why evolutionist have to change their theory model constantly. Creationist never or at least rarely ever change their Creation story, science seems to always confirm it. :)
Nov 4, 2014 02:52:47 #
Racmanaz wrote:
Where did the "lava rock" originate ?...out of thin air ?.......What is lava ?( look it up).......where is the error ?Well they have been wrong many times before, dating anything past 5,730 years is inaccurate, even inaccurate at 12 years. One instance of this is when dating the lava rocks from the cone of Mt St Helens 12 years after eruption, scientist aged those rocks from 365,000 years to 2.6 million years old. How can a 12 year old lava rock 12 years old be aged at 365,000 to 2.6 million years old?? This is one of many many errors in aging rocks and bones.
If "they" have been wrong before, why do you use their figures to make your point ?(about evolution).
Nov 4, 2014 03:13:49 #
user47602
Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
Racmanaz wrote:
Why does NO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST EVER mention creationism? And why does EVERY CREATIONIST EVER always mention the evolutionary conspiracy?The war is from evolutionist more than it is from Creationists. Science has always refuted the evolutionary theory and that's why evolutionist have to change their theory model constantly. Creationist never or at least rarely ever change their Creation story, science seems to always confirm it. :)
Nov 4, 2014 09:20:43 #
The claim of mis-dated lava comes from a paper published in 1974 in a "scientific journal" entitled "Scientific Creationism", which is unobtainable. As a result it is impossible to examine its premises, procedures, etc.
Nov 4, 2014 09:29:44 #
Rac; I took a dump today. There was nothing in it that support the existance a god.
By your standards, I have just proved that god does not exist.
By your standards, I have just proved that god does not exist.
Nov 4, 2014 10:33:18 #
Racmanaz
Loc: Sunny Tucson!
Lol just what I thought, more babbling and insults from athiests once again. I should have known they could not have a conversation without the usual babbling.
Nov 4, 2014 11:48:20 #
user47602
Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
user47602 wrote:
I think this is a logical rational question?Why does NO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST EVER mention creationism? And why does EVERY CREATIONIST EVER always mention the evolutionary conspiracy?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.