Tweet
Re: The Latest Evilutional Lies
you guys must have failed at school. uber noobs!
you guys must have failed at school. uber noobs!
-
Evolution is real! It has been proven! and all you have is one, book? That's your proof? There is more than one book proving evolution! So by that arguement, evolution wins. -
Re: The Latest Evilutional Lies
Hmmm, I'd show you, but then I'd have to kill you and the reprecussions really just aren't worth it.Originally posted by Ahimaaz Smith View PostYea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of Death, I will fear no evil...Comment
-
Re: The Latest Evilutional Lies
I'm sorry, then. I just find it very difficult to imagine a deer being related, in any way, to a whale...Originally posted by One-eyed Jack View PostNo, no, ConversionT, it's quite reasonable.
Even evolutionists agree that there is no way, scientifically, to prove that the universe was not created 6 minutes ago -- as long as it was created with all evidence of great antiquity in place.
In other words, if God created the Earth with all fossils in place, radioactive isotopes partially decayed, records of magnetic field reversals set properly into the rocks...then it would seem that the Earth was 4.6 billion years old despite having been created only 6000 years ago.
Why would He do that?
Wellsir!
Imagine that you are created with a physical age of 18 with...no evidence of your past. You have no memories. You cannot ride a bicycle, because that knowledge is not in your brain. You cannot read. You cannot even talk!
The record of the past is part of a system. A man created as a blank slate with an 18-year-old body is not the same person as a man who contains the record -- the evidence -- of having lived for 18 years.
Just so with the Earth! If God was to create a functional, naturalistic Earth, then He in His wisdom must needs create the evidence of Earth's long past.
One concrete example: Consider the hippopotamus.
As the hippo's adult teeth grow they are worn by friction, upper against lower and vice versa, into the necessary facets for chewing. An adult hippopotamus created without a past -- without the worn teeth that are evidence of past use -- would not be able to chew its food!
Ipso facto, ergo eructus!
~~ OEJComment
-
Re: The Latest Evilutional Lies
Deers related to whales? No it was more a small animal that looked a little like a tasmanian wolf and a cat!
Actually if you check the skeleton of a whale, you will notice useless finger-like bones at the tip of its flippers! The flippers need no bones, and the bones are all isolated ans alone, but they are remains of finger bones! Its sooo cool! 
A lot of animals today have remains of bones or organs that they no longer need because their bodies and life styles have evolved! If you take the iguana for example, they are vegetarians... but posses an incredible eye-sight mainly found in predatorial lizards. Even the position of their eyes (which are facing frontwards) suggest predator. They also possess a predator's razor sharp teeth meant to rip meat appart. They used to be predators, this is why they possess all those extremely well developed distinctly predatorial assets, but they no loger need them now since they have evolved into vegetarians! Its just a kind of luxury they got from past remains! They really have no more use for a sharp keen eyesight designed to track prey, or razor sharp teeth for meat!
Comment
-
Re: The Latest Evilutional Lies
Ohh! Your right on that one!Originally posted by Brother Temperance View Post
But there is a strong misconception about carbon dating! 
Its really interesting though!
See carbon dating can only determine with precisions objects from a certain age! Dinosaur fosils for example are too old for carbon dating to work! But carbon dating is ONLY used to find the age of relatively "new" items of only a few thousand years old (past 17,000 years the carbon method is pretty useless) they NEVER use carbon dating on things that are mcuh older, they use Radiometric Dating! Radiometric dating is WAY more accurate and can tell the age of objects that we could not before. Radiometric dating is ALWAYS what is used on ancient fossils and such, because it can give a very reliable and accurate age determination!
Its really just a misconception that CARBON dating is used on fossiles! So I can understand you guys for arguing against it! It would be illogical and rather stupid and ignorant for aware scientist to try to use carbon dating on dinosaur fossiles! 
They just don't!
Comment
-
Comment