Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 4,495)

Showing posts 89,881 - 89,900 of112,792
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94899
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>None of this explains the wind-formed Coconino Sandstone between the Hermit Shale and Toroweap Formation. A makes no sense to say that the canyon is the result of a single flood event with the miraculous presence of a formation whose origins are not water formed. In addition, how do you explain the tunneling in the Tapeats Sandstone? Surely you aren't going to claim that marine organisms were going about there business under the pressure of a global flood.
I have seen Coconino-image depositions within the Tapeats, angled patterns and all, very conform and very much water deposited. Its still a sandstone - sand dunes don't homaginize well, no more than lithify into concrete hard structures without water and 'lime'.

Take the Cottonwood trail down to the creek and follow it down, you will see both. I am a novice to the canyon, but had guides that have over 25 years working there. Don't know about tunnels, sorry.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94900
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

We are well aware that oxygen levels were higher at times in the past, and the climate supportive of more lush flora and fauna, almost to the poles.

However, your suggestion that even super oxygen levels could compress the required thousands of feet of crinoids and other deposits into a year or a few years is absurd. You could accelerate the growth rate by 100x and still not get even close to fitting the deposits into the >6000 year window you are suggesting.
<quoted text>

Your math is way out, if you think all this could be accounted for by sudden death of any amount of life at one time. For example, do you realise you could pile all 7 billion humans alive today into about a cubic mile? That should offer some perspective! Perhaps you should read his stats on the Crinoids again.
<quoted text>
Because the Grand Canyon Supergroup is composed of Proterozoic rock, of course. There are precious few fossils of any kind in the world prior to the Cambrian. So what would you expect?
<quoted text>
In fact he discusses fossil fish eating other fish etc. But I think you are confusing that period with the superfine laminate periods in which there is evidence of burrowing, but not fish remains crossing many of those layers simultaneously.
Anyway, thanks for reading it.
Wish i could truncate like you folks, so i will just get to it -

On the the GC supergroup, I think you summarized all too quickly. I spent some time in there. Lets be honest, if the world was formed out of water and with water in the beginning, with no evolution involved - isn't reasonable that this is a remnant of the first sediment crustal layers that man lived on? Further, it being parallel to the fractured tilt of the crustal granites below it, this structure is all remnant of the first world before the crustal breakup the Bible mentions? You see to me it fit's perfectly, if I was to ask for a proof formation system inserted into the Grand C in relation to the GU and the position of the overburden that's fossilized- its perfect. Way to many concurrent structure's to ignore and massive in scale at that. More later.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94901
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen Coconino-image depositions within the Tapeats, angled patterns and all, very conform and very much water deposited. Its still a sandstone - sand dunes don't homaginize well, no more than lithify into concrete hard structures without water and 'lime'.
Take the Cottonwood trail down to the creek and follow it down, you will see both. I am a novice to the canyon, but had guides that have over 25 years working there. Don't know about tunnels, sorry.
No, you are very uneducated if you make that claim.

There is no doubt about the Coconino being a terrestrial deposit. Not only are the sands crossbedded as they would be in a land deposit and not in a marine deposit, the grains also show the frosting from wind blown collisions not the smooth faces of water borne deposits.

I need to emphasize the importance of real peer reviewed articles.

When you submit an article for peer review they try to tear it apart. They look for any flaw. The least flaw found will cause the paper to be sent back for editing.

You have submitted no peer reviewed science for your beliefs. Creation "scientists" avoid peer review because they know that all of their mistakes would be brought to light.

That is the act of someone who knows that they are guilty of not telling the truth. Especially among scientists that have had some of their papers published when they were in their own, non-creation specialties.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94902
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are making a claim, but what is the evidence here? What are these out of sequence fossils and where are they? What is it about the Grand Canyon that it fails to support the conclusions of Geology?
Now you have previously failed to answer my questions, so I don't expect that to change. It is a paradigm I have become used to. Meaning you are the first young earther to do this.
DFS, have a day job and also working to answer other posters delayed me here so hold on;

The Silurian and Ordovician are missing in the Canyon. It jumps from trilobites to nautaloids. The nautaloid findings are interesting because most all found are of the same age. Hardly a good snapshot of how evolution should work over mil/y. They also often orient in s particular direction while they were trapped - current flow in a placid sea?

Dating of the lava flows is contradictory -

http://www.icr.org/article/282/

Good overview showing the coco formation structures -

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...

Good luck

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94903
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
DFS, have a day job and also working to answer other posters delayed me here so hold on;
The Silurian and Ordovician are missing in the Canyon. It jumps from trilobites to nautaloids. The nautaloid findings are interesting because most all found are of the same age. Hardly a good snapshot of how evolution should work over mil/y. They also often orient in s particular direction while they were trapped - current flow in a placid sea?
Dating of the lava flows is contradictory -
http://www.icr.org/article/282/
Good overview showing the coco formation structures -
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...
Good luck
ICR is not a valid source. It is not peer reviewed science.

Yes, there is an unconformity and the Silurian and Ordovician are missing. Why do you think this is a problem? Areas can be raised and lowered over geologic history. Some have had it happen several times.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94904
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Uh oh SBT. You used a lying source again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.h...

"Summary
The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project does not strike a telling blow against the reliability of isochron dating. The conditions which caused the "false isochron" in this case are fairly well-understood, and easy to avoid by proper sample selection. In fact, the resulting age in this case may well be meaningful and accurate. The problem is not the age itself but rather Austin's sleight-of-hand in trying to pass off the result as necessarily the age of the flows rather than a minimum age of their source.

The attempt to abuse the meaning of a single contrived date -- which was produced only by a sample selection geared to dating a different event, and only for samples whose results were known by Austin in advance -- says a lot more about the level of competence or honesty in this creation "science" research program, than it says about the validity of isochron dating methods.

Even if given credit for discovering this case (which he clearly doesn't deserve, as his use of Leeman's data proves), Austin has only managed to "call into question" a particular sampling technique. However, this sampling technique was known by mainstream geologists to behave in this manner long before Austin published on the topic, and this behavior is often intentionally used by geologists. Austin was aware of this, as his 1988 reference to Faure shows."

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94905
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen Coconino-image depositions within the Tapeats, angled patterns and all, very conform and very much water deposited. Its still a sandstone - sand dunes don't homaginize well, no more than lithify into concrete hard structures without water and 'lime'.
Take the Cottonwood trail down to the creek and follow it down, you will see both. I am a novice to the canyon, but had guides that have over 25 years working there. Don't know about tunnels, sorry.
No legitimate geologist considers them to be water deposited. It must be a conspiracy.

The tunneling is fossilized evidence of marine animals. According to your belief, they had time to work around in the sediment and apparently thrive while under the pressure of a tremendous water column. This evidence doesn't fit your belief-based version, but fits the accepted geological model.
Anonymous

Lynchburg, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94906
Jul 3, 2013
 
test

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94907
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
DFS, have a day job and also working to answer other posters delayed me here so hold on;
The Silurian and Ordovician are missing in the Canyon. It jumps from trilobites to nautaloids. The nautaloid findings are interesting because most all found are of the same age. Hardly a good snapshot of how evolution should work over mil/y. They also often orient in s particular direction while they were trapped - current flow in a placid sea?
Dating of the lava flows is contradictory -
http://www.icr.org/article/282/
Good overview showing the coco formation structures -
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...
Good luck
I don't know if I need luck or a drink to believe this stuff.
If the canyon formed as the result of draining rapidly receeding flood waters, why isn't it straigher? Why is there only one canyon like this in the world?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94908
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Uh oh SBT. You used a lying source again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.h...
"Summary
The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project does not strike a telling blow against the reliability of isochron dating. The conditions which caused the "false isochron" in this case are fairly well-understood, and easy to avoid by proper sample selection. In fact, the resulting age in this case may well be meaningful and accurate. The problem is not the age itself but rather Austin's sleight-of-hand in trying to pass off the result as necessarily the age of the flows rather than a minimum age of their source.
The attempt to abuse the meaning of a single contrived date -- which was produced only by a sample selection geared to dating a different event, and only for samples whose results were known by Austin in advance -- says a lot more about the level of competence or honesty in this creation "science" research program, than it says about the validity of isochron dating methods.
Even if given credit for discovering this case (which he clearly doesn't deserve, as his use of Leeman's data proves), Austin has only managed to "call into question" a particular sampling technique. However, this sampling technique was known by mainstream geologists to behave in this manner long before Austin published on the topic, and this behavior is often intentionally used by geologists. Austin was aware of this, as his 1988 reference to Faure shows."
SBT's posts on here remind me of a huckster politician or a bad used car salesman. His posts have the feeling of a straffing. Like he arrives here in a hurry, blasts out his spiel and rushes off. I half expect him to ask me if I am interested in Amway. He throws in a lot of technical trimmings, but I am not seeing any meat in this sandwhich.

He blows off the fact that the Coconino sandstone is formed from sand dunes and bears the characters one would expect from such a formation. No massive flood could make the canyon in one year long event and include that formation. There is no evidence I can find that legitimately supports it being water-formed. I haven't checked his links yet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94909
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>SBT's posts on here remind me of a huckster politician or a bad used car salesman. His posts have the feeling of a straffing. Like he arrives here in a hurry, blasts out his spiel and rushes off. I half expect him to ask me if I am interested in Amway. He throws in a lot of technical trimmings, but I am not seeing any meat in this sandwhich.
He blows off the fact that the Coconino sandstone is formed from sand dunes and bears the characters one would expect from such a formation. No massive flood could make the canyon in one year long event and include that formation. There is no evidence I can find that legitimately supports it being water-formed. I haven't checked his links yet.
I did check one in this last list and quickly debunked it.

Soon my only response will be to point out that we already debunked all of his claims.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94910
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>SBT's posts on here remind me of a huckster politician or a bad used car salesman. His posts have the feeling of a straffing. Like he arrives here in a hurry, blasts out his spiel and rushes off. I half expect him to ask me if I am interested in Amway. He throws in a lot of technical trimmings, but I am not seeing any meat in this sandwhich.
He blows off the fact that the Coconino sandstone is formed from sand dunes and bears the characters one would expect from such a formation. No massive flood could make the canyon in one year long event and include that formation. There is no evidence I can find that legitimately supports it being water-formed. I haven't checked his links yet.
Snake oil salesman.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94911
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

You have to love how he includes an article from Nature in his post and then totally ignores it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94913
Jul 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
What I mean is chemicals have no mind and then must be self-directed to create life if not directed by intelligence. Reason and logic demand that complexity doesn't come about by accident and chance. We enjoy operational science that provides all the gadgets we use to make life simpler, but somehow we then at the same time throw out reason, experience and Logic then switch when we view the natural world, even though we have no means to replicate its colossal complexity as humans. I see a jet and say man made it, in the same moment a bird flys by that in many ways schools the jet and we reason it has no maker?
Self directed, if by that you mean, they follow the laws of physics and chemistry.

Your intuition about the inability of these processes to create complexity is simply false. I cannot put it any plainer, as even in your geology experience you have seen that simple starting conditions can spontaneously lead to complex outcomes. Does it take more information to describe the Grand Canyon or a simple flat plain? Yet even though you disagree over the method, you agree that it was a combination of natural processes that created the GC. Misconstruing the second law seems to be creationists second favourite pastime after misconstruing the fossil record!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94914
Jul 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems amazing to me that the older world, the world we see in the fossils, is so diverse when we are told evolution is an upward self-directed mindless system of onward advancement, how does that work today? Animals/plants and possibly even man were large and well formed to fit the past environment that seems to have been a thriving place - what happened to this world to stunt it?
Well, we have the entire period before the Permian extinction with animals thriving on land for 170 million years. But not mammals, birds,or dinosaurs. Giant amphibians and millipedes and the first primitive reptiles in the latter portion of the period only.

And we have the evidence of multiple mass extinctions, to explain your "stunt it" question.
Many admit there was a more tropical climate that encompassed most of the earth in the past.
ADMIT??? What folly. Scientists discovered it and actively discuss it, and it has not been controversial for decades. There is more in your expression here than meets the eye, as if conventional scientists sheepishly accepted something your lot have been insisting on, which is utter balderdash.
What few talk about (except folks like Michael Orrd and the past Dr. Maynard Miller, Americas most experienced Glaciologist), was that if you have warm oceans and then somehow the atmosphere takes a dramatic change downward in temperature, a new rain/evaporation cycle emerges, that the contact of warm oceans to a cold atmosphere (they have found mastodons frozen whole with the buttercups still hanging out of their mouths) would result in massive evaporation of the oceans.
Yes, we know. Again, your insinuation that this is somehow a dirty little secret of geologists, or swept under the carpet. Its not, and never was.
There are also so many out of sequence fossils, those that don't align with the 'geologic column'.
Not a single verified fossil of a creature that existed prior to its necessary evolutionary antecedents exists. Prove me wrong.
We know that reptiles sink when they die and mammals bloat and float....Doesn't that explain why retiles makeup the lower end of the column and mammals are further up?
What is funny about this is that mammals evolved at the same time as the dinosaurs and we have plenty of mammal fossils starting with the mammal-like reptiles 230 mya. However, they are not modern mammals but what you would expect for the earliest examples of the class.
This is not always the case also. In the Lewis range in Montana we have shell fossils above the Dinos and in Eastern Oregon pregnant Plesiosaur was found trapped above the mammal fossils swimming and struggling for her life!
Wow! So there were primitive mammals back then. Like I said. Not controversial.

The interesting pattern here is your insinuations that all of the above are points of difficulty, don't fit the conventional view, and are a bit hush hush in secular science circles. This is patently false and not only that, fails big time in that scientists LOVE to find anomalies and work through them. It is how careers are made. But it serves whoever is teaching you to paint a false picture of conventional science.

Strawmen are easy to debunk, the real science, not so much.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94915
Jul 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I did check one in this last list and quickly debunked it.
Soon my only response will be to point out that we already debunked all of his claims.
Like I debunked your lies and BS the other day. How can you even show your name with the shame you must carry now after getting shown you are a liar and full of BS. You got beat at your own game and now that I am back I will gladly do it again when you are ready.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94916
Jul 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
ICR is not a valid source. It is not peer reviewed science.
Yes, there is an unconformity and the Silurian and Ordovician are missing. Why do you think this is a problem? Areas can be raised and lowered over geologic history. Some have had it happen several times.
Sorry SZ, you are waving off hundreds of mil/y of 'evolution' way too quickly. This one is a nightmare for specialists in these 2 eons. They break out in cold sweats in the night and through things at you when you bring this up in their office. Have personal experience in that! So you get to the bottom of the canyon and when you look and pound the rocks this is what you find.

1. Shell fossils
2. Undersea worms
3. Trilobites
4. Nautiloids

If these were overcome in a turbidity, this is the exact order they should be in. What you don't find is EVOLUTION. There is no sign of any transnational's, just successive types in order of their mobility. Don't blame me if the most dramatic model of geology on the planet falsifies the Geo Column. You have to read it into it to get it.

We should find hundreds of intermediates between shell and soft-shell, different successive developments of trilobites and the COMPLEX EYE, right? NONE EXIST, period. The trilobite eye is an amazing marvel, these have been found to correct for underwater aberration, a very lucky chance development, don't you think, yet found at the start of all? And the nautiloids, amazing creature, swims, millions of them are fossilized complete for hundreds of square miles in and around the Canyon in a limestone deposit. Where are all the transitions in the column there? I have seen those deposits. The truth is it takes the concept of evolution in the mind of the beholder to bridge the gaps, the evidence is missing as it should because there is no biological mechanism to bridge gaps at the cell level. Evolutionists must complete that magic mentally, hence pretty drawings and lots of words but no evidence.

It's clear that the Grand Canyon doesn't represent anything calm and placid, but is a testament of a catastrophe, contrary to what all your supposed 'peer review' experts with all their education tout. They are wrong, and if they are wrong about this, how can they be trusted with other challenges to current dogma? I can't blame them in a way, these days careers are ruined for being honest, like Nicodemus.

http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids

As far as your demand that every piece of field work must be peer reviewed by these same evolutionists, that's like getting by the Commies with a book on the virtues of capitalism or a critique on their leader. Doesn't make it a lie, wrong or false. Maybe you should be a little more open minded SZ.

http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94917
Jul 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry SZ, you are waving off hundreds of mil/y of 'evolution' way too quickly. This one is a nightmare for specialists in these 2 eons. They break out in cold sweats in the night and through things at you when you bring this up in their office. Have personal experience in that! So you get to the bottom of the canyon and when you look and pound the rocks this is what you find.
1. Shell fossils
2. Undersea worms
3. Trilobites
4. Nautiloids
If these were overcome in a turbidity, this is the exact order they should be in. What you don't find is EVOLUTION. There is no sign of any transnational's, just successive types in order of their mobility. Don't blame me if the most dramatic model of geology on the planet falsifies the Geo Column. You have to read it into it to get it.
We should find hundreds of intermediates between shell and soft-shell, different successive developments of trilobites and the COMPLEX EYE, right? NONE EXIST, period. The trilobite eye is an amazing marvel, these have been found to correct for underwater aberration, a very lucky chance development, don't you think, yet found at the start of all? And the nautiloids, amazing creature, swims, millions of them are fossilized complete for hundreds of square miles in and around the Canyon in a limestone deposit. Where are all the transitions in the column there? I have seen those deposits. The truth is it takes the concept of evolution in the mind of the beholder to bridge the gaps, the evidence is missing as it should because there is no biological mechanism to bridge gaps at the cell level. Evolutionists must complete that magic mentally, hence pretty drawings and lots of words but no evidence.
It's clear that the Grand Canyon doesn't represent anything calm and placid, but is a testament of a catastrophe, contrary to what all your supposed 'peer review' experts with all their education tout. They are wrong, and if they are wrong about this, how can they be trusted with other challenges to current dogma? I can't blame them in a way, these days careers are ruined for being honest, like Nicodemus.
http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids
As far as your demand that every piece of field work must be peer reviewed by these same evolutionists, that's like getting by the Commies with a book on the virtues of capitalism or a critique on their leader. Doesn't make it a lie, wrong or false. Maybe you should be a little more open minded SZ.
http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids
Do you want to answer the question of where all the bodies of those evil menz went, according to you flud prophecy the ground is full of evil men destroyed by the wrath of gawd.

"The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said,“I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

The rock strata should be full of them , perhaps there was one clinging to the dino you said was swimming for it's life.
Surely the whole strata is filled with them mixed in with all the other creatures. Inquiring minds want to know , how many did you find?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94918
Jul 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I debunked your lies and BS the other day. How can you even show your name with the shame you must carry now after getting shown you are a liar and full of BS. You got beat at your own game and now that I am back I will gladly do it again when you are ready.
What shame?

Oh, what, are you talking about the all of the points and facts you ran away from with lame excuses?

No, your idiocy does not shame me at all.

I only think it shames you and your many socks. That would make you the most shamed person on Topix.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94919
Jul 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry SZ, you are waving off hundreds of mil/y of 'evolution' way too quickly. This one is a nightmare for specialists in these 2 eons. They break out in cold sweats in the night and through things at you when you bring this up in their office. Have personal experience in that! So you get to the bottom of the canyon and when you look and pound the rocks this is what you find.
1. Shell fossils
2. Undersea worms
3. Trilobites
4. Nautiloids
If these were overcome in a turbidity, this is the exact order they should be in. What you don't find is EVOLUTION. There is no sign of any transnational's, just successive types in order of their mobility. Don't blame me if the most dramatic model of geology on the planet falsifies the Geo Column. You have to read it into it to get it.
We should find hundreds of intermediates between shell and soft-shell, different successive developments of trilobites and the COMPLEX EYE, right? NONE EXIST, period. The trilobite eye is an amazing marvel, these have been found to correct for underwater aberration, a very lucky chance development, don't you think, yet found at the start of all? And the nautiloids, amazing creature, swims, millions of them are fossilized complete for hundreds of square miles in and around the Canyon in a limestone deposit. Where are all the transitions in the column there? I have seen those deposits. The truth is it takes the concept of evolution in the mind of the beholder to bridge the gaps, the evidence is missing as it should because there is no biological mechanism to bridge gaps at the cell level. Evolutionists must complete that magic mentally, hence pretty drawings and lots of words but no evidence.
It's clear that the Grand Canyon doesn't represent anything calm and placid, but is a testament of a catastrophe, contrary to what all your supposed 'peer review' experts with all their education tout. They are wrong, and if they are wrong about this, how can they be trusted with other challenges to current dogma? I can't blame them in a way, these days careers are ruined for being honest, like Nicodemus.
http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids
As far as your demand that every piece of field work must be peer reviewed by these same evolutionists, that's like getting by the Commies with a book on the virtues of capitalism or a critique on their leader. Doesn't make it a lie, wrong or false. Maybe you should be a little more open minded SZ.
http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids
No. Worldwide creationists have no explanation of the fossil record.

They have to depend upon miraculous "blooms" where the conditions would lead to exactly the opposite of that.

They cannot explain the sorting of fossils, especially when it comes to micro flora and fauna. In fact they seem to think all sorts of weird things. That ichthyosaurs could not out swim manatees. That humans are faster than the fastest of dinosaurs. That oak trees are faster than pine trees, now that one makes no sense at all.

There are all sorts of land forms that you cannot explain without your opponents breaking down with laughter. A flood could never make incised meanders for example.

The problem with creationism is that it constantly contradicts itself. We don't even need evolution to tell us that it is wrong. It says that all by itself.

Now you loaded up your post with nonsense and lies again.

Why don't you bring up the points you don't understand one at a time?

For example, eye evolution has been explained many times over. You made one idiotic mistake by claiming that evolution is random. It isn't. Parts of it are random, that does not mean evolution itself is random..

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 89,881 - 89,900 of112,792
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

126 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 4 min Bezeer 6,194
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min wichita-rick 141,177
Add a word and drop a word 6 min Bezeer 1,040
Super Volcano In Yellowstone Turns Roads 'Into ... 7 min Christaliban 64
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 12 min Drone 6,540
what are you eatin'? (Mar '13) 19 min curiouslu 2,373
Good Night Thread... (Nov '12) 23 min Petal Power 924
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 27 min magictrix 14,785
When I Dream I Dream of _____ 1 hr Petal Power 62
Boy, 9, marries 62-year-old mother of five for ... 2 hr Christaliban 15
The Night Owl Saloon (Jun '11) 2 hr poison 15,577
•••
•••