Korean Job Discussion Forums

[nautilus]

[nautilus]

Globutron:

Here are your Eocene amber fossils from "90 million years ago".
notice how none of them show any change to today.

http://www.ambersdenydarwin.com/amber_20.html

in fact there are no fossils in existence-of the millions we've dug up- that show any evolutionary change. because evolution never happened...

The only "evidence" for evolution is the wild imaginations of evolutionists which are presented as fact in glossy magazines..

[NYC_Gal]

You don't seem to understand the article.

I can understand why, though. You have to actually think, rather than obey a fictitious book.

[Underwaterbob]

[nautilus]

[pangaea]

nautilus wrote:

[nautilus]

[Globutron]

Well... Amber isn't a good way to prove evolution. I'm not sure many people, if any use it for suck things.

Generally microscopic and very very small creatures change very little. The majority of early life forms haven't changed at all and are still lingering around today.

Reptiles being an ancient species still linger but in smaller numbers.

As for the DNA;

Roberta Poinard (sp) and her husband found 40 million year old cells within a gnat, in good enough condition to see the structural details within the cells, too.
Nuclei and chromatin in the nucleus and so forth.

Finding DNA was difficult, but two separate groups found some preserved within a bee and a termite around the same time (since they started looking at the same time). They were dated at 20 million years (obviously this is a lie because people don't know how to date things, of course).

Then 7 people as two teams got together and found 135 million ish year old DNA from a weevil (Poinar, Cano, Akra, Pieniazek and others).

Of course, the DNA being this old (even after 20 million years) becomes chopped up and muddled around a complete mess, often contaminated, but still distinguishable.

And as a result, nothing can be confirmed that DNA can preserve for that long and be extracted, however this still hyped the media into Jurassic park. And the scientists insisted that this is all fiction. They were not all for the conspiracy. They said the conclusions were negative, despite media claims.

Dating amber is not about dating the actual amber itself, but the creatures inside (they have indeed found previous incarnations of creatures, such as some spiders, orb web spiders, a Mesozygiella dunlopi.

Also they test the bubbles for O2 levels, which as we've discussed was higher in concentration in the olden days.
Also the surrounded rocks, that need a certain amount of time to become, from soil and mud to stone.

The process for amber to harden into rock form takes just as long, through means of

[Globutron]

Also, out of further curiosity, I'd like you to give your views on this.

http://www.mersk.net/wwwdocs/wwwdocs/wwwdocs/Hubble_ultra_deep_field.jpg

The ultra deep field. a PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE (obviously with filters and so forth) of focussing in on nothing at all, emptiness of space for 11 days. Every single pixel of colour you see is a galaxy.

If you don't dismiss this and call it conjecture, or a propaganda photoshop, why is your creator creating all this, only to put life on our planet? Were the rest screw ups that he couldn't get right?

Why even bother making them other than for us to gawp at?

How (back to red shift) are these no more than 6,000 years old?

Back to physics, we know Velocity = Distance/time. And we know the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, unless all physicists are lying and it's mere conjecture, despite the experiments proving so. Light cannot speed up or slow down in a vacuum. Scientists can slow light down, in fact almost to a halt in certain experiments. But not in a vacuum.

You can do the old claim that light was faster in the olden days, which is only what complete fools claim. Since this wouldn't even prove the youth of the universe, it would actually directly prove the universe would be several times older. You'd need to understands the physics here as to why. But also we would be completely swallowed up by various supernovae and stars that would need to be thousands of lightyears bigger as a result. We wouldn't exist if light was faster.

So using simple maths we can determine the distance of stars through means of parallax, main sequence fitting, Cepheid variables, red shift (again), the doppler effect and so forth. Unless these are all mindless conjecture made from guess work and propaganda towards evolution.

To debunk this, the only thing you can do is claim Gravity is mere conjecture and an item of propaganda. Because if light was faster, the universe was younger, gravity would pull in neighbouring dwarf galaxies and stars and would utterly absorb us into nothingness in a few years.

So with this in mind, I assume you accept gravity. And therefore accept the age of the Universe - to an estimated degree. However this doesnt mean you have to accept the earth being old. Well, yes it does, since the earth has undergone exactly the same processes as the rest of the universe. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist right now. Or if it did and does, somehow, it won't in the next couple of years. due to galaxies obliterating us. I say somehow because I'm not sure how the gravity could hold us here and not over there.

So you basically must accept the earth is as old as it is, or you must claim gravity to be wrong. If you want me to go into more details as to why, I will happily do so, Physics is my favourite thing outside of composing music and I could and do go on about it most days.

So what say you? What is your thoughts on the IDer and the explanation for the age of the earth and the universe?

and more personally, Why we are the only ones, and why the organic movements on mars are obviously a mistake because no life elsewhere can or will ever be found because it has never existed or even tried to exist elsewhere?

Were they mistakes? was the god placing them there for our amusement? Obviously if so he is directly involved with the huge propaganda you speak of.

Once we've established this, that you accept the universe, and the existence of gravity, and therefore accept the age of the earth to an estimated degree of millions, billions of years, we can then step back and elaborate more on the more biological and chemical processes not involved with the earth being a mere 6,000 years old. We can make a lot more sense of the mindless conjecture.

[tomato]

[NYC_Gal]

[tomato]

[nautilus]

[nautilus]

[Globutron]

What exactly are you trying to say, Nautilus... *rubs chin*