|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are your actions relevant to environmental degradation/global warming? |
| Yes |
|
51% |
[ 17 ] |
| No |
|
48% |
[ 16 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 33 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| remote as to be the closest imaginable thing to impossible |
Yes, Imaginable. In the same way It's not imaginable to imagine the amount of stars on a galaxy, or the size of an atom. We aren't designed (for want of a better word, rather than saying we were designed) to imagine such things.
Yet it's odd that you don't attack those sciences. Because those sciences aren't picked on by the masses. They WERE picked on. Just like HIV not causing AIDS, or how smoking causes cancer. Both were ridiculous conspiracy's aimed at making scientists rich and famous. These people never doubted the same scientists that gave them cures for the flu, though.
You don't pick on these scientists because nobody else is picking on them, not because they are more viable. There just simply isn't enough ready-made material for you to use against them. Because it's too infallible.
Yet, all the creationists could easily just start picking on a new science and making it less fallible. But since they've already started on this one, they may as well keep it going. As UWB said, there is far more evidence and proof of evolution than there is quantum physics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread has gone dead lately, so I'll share what has been going on in http:www.evolutionfairytale.com:
Here are 10 Main Evidences Against Evolution:
| Quote: |
1. Macro-evolution has never been observed by anyone and leading evolutionists admit macro-evoution is not observable in the lifetime of a Human observer. . . .
2. No new species. . . .
3. No fossils evidence for evolution exists. . . .
4. There is no known mechanism or driving force for evolution. . . .
5. Macro-evolution cannot be tested as so fails to meet the requirement for the scientific method. . . .
6. No Evidence from Similarities. . . .
7. There is no evidence for evolution from history. . . .
8. The DNA link between Chimps and Man has been lowered. . . .
9. Major gap in cranial capacity shows that man did not evolve. . . .
10. Evolution can not explain the Human Consciousness. . . . |
Most of these statements were followed with out-of-context quotations from Evolutionists.
Another Creationist posted this:
| Quote: |
IF YOU want to know how all living things are related, don't bother looking in any textbook that's more than a few years old . Chances are that the tree of life you find there will be wrong. Since they began delving into DNA, biologists have been finding that organisms with features that look alike are often not as closely related as they had thought . These are turbulent times in the world of phylogeny, yet there has been one rule that evolutionary biologists felt they could cling to: the amount of complexity in the living world has always been on the increase. Now even that is in doubt.
While nobody disagrees that there has been a general trend towards complexity - humans are indisputably more complicated than amoebas - recent findings suggest that some of our very early ancestors were far more sophisticated than we have given them credit for. If so, then much of that precocious complexity has been lost by subsequent generations as they evolved into new species. says Detlev Arendt, an evolutionary and developmental biologist at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany. |
An Evolutionist responded:
| Quote: |
| and the problem for evolution here is.......? |
A Creationist posted this link, which purportedly shows prehistoric drawings of dinosaurs, thereby proving that men and dinosaurs co-existed:
http://www.s8int.com/dinolit1.html
One nugget which was used in the thread was the one about the animal resembling stegosaurus which is carved on a Cambodian temple. One Evolutionist responded that the stegosaurus didn't even inhabit what is now Cambodia.
A Young Earth Creationist asked Theistic Evolutionists how they reconcile their views with Genesis 1:27, which says that God created man in his own image.
Does that mean that God is a microbe?
A Theistic Evolutionist responded that "He looks the same as yours, He's intangible, and we can't literally see Him. The only physical image we have of Him is when took on our form as Jesus Christ."
There is a new member who identifies himself as a Christian Creationist, but who has ideas which are wacky from the standpoint of other Christian Creationists. He questions that the human mind is falsifiable because only God can "observe the human brain to falsify it."
He also denies that God created life or that the Bible even says that God created life. He argues that life is eternal, God is eternal, and God is life. According to him, the notion that God created life is a Satanic lie.
Since he is different from the other Creationists, he might get kicked off.
But then again, he occasionally wins favor with the moderators by taking a swat at Evolutionists.
Here is how he starts one of his threads:
| Quote: |
Is evolution responsible?
According to atheistic evolutionary ideology there is no God. Assuming that that is true how come atheistic believers tend to blame God and religion for the problems on this planet? Wouldn�t evolution be responsible for the good and evil, WWI, WWII, the Inquisition, the holocaust, Stalin�s Purge, ethnic cleansing the, crucifixion of Jesus, etc�? If there is no God doesn�t evolution have to be responsible for the ideas of God and religion? |
Creationists wrote back to say "amen, brother" while Evolutionists wrote back with their own explanations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting arguments... Here's something i'd like anyone - creationism or evolutionism - to explain. I have my explanation but interesting to hear others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi8pPPSYDt4
Theres a few of these, cat and crow, lioness and antelope |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
| This thread has gone dead lately, so I'll share what has been going on in http:www.evolutionfairytale.com: |
Right. Been busy. Also sensed that nothing new was being posted and that we were mostly going in circles. But thanks for your interest.
[quote]Here are 10 Main Evidences Against Evolution:
| Quote: |
| 1. Macro-evolution has never been observed by anyone and leading evolutionists admit macro-evoution is not observable in the lifetime of a Human observer. . . . |
Right. And speculation that it actually happens is down to guesswork anyway.
Part of the problem is the confusion surrounding definition of terms. Some might say that speciation counts as macroevolution. Remember your wallabies?
| Quote: |
| 2. No new species. . . . |
A lot of time when scientists split known species in two it is based on growing taxonomic knowledge and dna studies rather than the species actually diverging. Its just that it takes them a long time to notice the subtle differences in e.g. voice or behaviour. There are numerous different species which look virtually identical and can freelly interbreed. Its just that the definition of species has become very broad. Creatures that would have been regarded as races or subspecies are now being granted species status.
| Quote: |
| 3. No fossils evidence for evolution exists. . . . |
Right. And what they do propose as transitional is highly dubious. A mark of desperation spurred by failing to find the widescale transformation they initially envisaged.
| Quote: |
| 4. There is no known mechanism or driving force for evolution. . . . |
Evolutionists will keep reiterating mutation followed by selection. but clearly our increased understanding of this shows it to be woefully inadequate to have driven the supposed mass-evolution.
| Quote: |
| 5. Macro-evolution cannot be tested as so fails to meet the requirement for the scientific method. . . . |
Yes. Evolutionist claims that mouse deer morphed into whales are just that: claims. Claims not backed by any credible evidence.
| Quote: |
| 6. No Evidence from Similarities. . . . |
yes..because apparently similar organisms have been shown to have radically different dna.
| Quote: |
| 7. There is no evidence for evolution from history. . . . |
Right. The best evolutionists have are examples of superficial change in e.g. size over time. Nothing to demonstrate upward morphological change.
| Quote: |
| 8. The DNA link between Chimps and Man has been lowered. . . . |
Indeed. An initial agenda-driven flawed study pegged it at 99%. Then it was 95. More recent and better techniques put it at 70% The same similarity between humans and chicken.
| Quote: |
| 9. Major gap in cranial capacity shows that man did not evolve. . . . |
I think i discussed this at length with globutron..
| Quote: |
| 10. Evolution can not explain the Human Consciousness. . . . |
..among many other things.
| Quote: |
| According to atheistic evolutionary ideology there is no God. Assuming that that is true how come atheistic believers tend to blame God and religion for the problems on this planet? Wouldn�t evolution be responsible for the good and evil, WWI, WWII, the Inquisition, the holocaust, Stalin�s Purge, ethnic cleansing the, crucifixion of Jesus, etc�? If there is no God doesn�t evolution have to be responsible for the ideas of God and religion? |
Good point. 
Considering Tomato that you were generous enough to put forth problems with evolution, I'll let you know some random points evolutionists have in their favour that I find difficult:
1) Worms and certain other organisms were supposedly not aboard the Ark. How did they survive underground for a year? Hmm.
2) Light reaching us from distant stars: this is problematic. Although I can always say God created the universe old. And that time is circular. And so on. I just need to understand it better.
3) Hominid skulls. While I can dismiss many as exaggerated reconstructions, misidentified apes, or pieced together from separate remains found far apart, there still exists some puzzling skulls there. My best explanation: human variety was formerly greater than is now.
4) Embryology. I haven't found much about this on creationist websites except for basic expose's of Haeckel's deceptiuons.
but tomato points out a few interesting examples of embryos re-absorbing certain features. I find this interesting, although ultimately I'm prepared to say that its an example of organisms losing complexity over time.
Those are the main holes in my argument as i see it. Maybe yourself and Globutron can share things about evolution that you're a bit unsure of? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
Interesting arguments... Here's something i'd like anyone - creationism or evolutionism - to explain. I have my explanation but interesting to hear others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi8pPPSYDt4
Theres a few of these, cat and crow, lioness and antelope |
Love it!
Thanks for that.
They're throwbacks to their original state before the fall and the onset of predation.
These examples involve captive animals who do not have to worry about the competition to survive. Their needs are met, so they can afford to show their friendly side. Wild animals can't afford that luxury I think. They would be forced to see eachother as nothing but food. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello, Globutron!
I can think of two explanations of why a member of one species would treat a member of another species as a member of his or her own species:
If an animal is raised in another species, that animal confuses that species for his or her own. This has happened when children get lost in the wilderness, this has happened when scientists take an egg from one species and lay it in a nest of another species, and this has happened between other species in the wilderness. This is also why domestic dogs embarrass their owners by molesting their house guests.
According to Desmond Morris, pet owners are attracted to dogs and cats because they are comparable in size to children, and serve as surrogates for children. I would like to add that dogs and cats are covered with fur. Perhaps our inner brains have not adapted to our bare hairless skin, so we still long to nurture children who are covered with fur. (Please, that's only a suggestion!)
I realize that both of those responses go a short way toward answering your question.
Hello, Nautilus!
I can think of one major doubt which I have had: I have wondered why the human species has developed mental faculties which seemingly served so little purpose in the wilderness. When did our prehistoric ancestors ever have to diagram sentences or calculate square roots?
Other Evolutionists have tried to explain this to me, but they never could explain it in words which I understand.
Alfred Russel Wallace, an Evolutionary theorist who lived at about the same time as Darwin, wondered the same thing. The only explanation he could think of is that the human species evolved much as Darwin said it did, but that God gave us an extra shot of intelligence somewhere along the line.
It's late at night right now.
I'll read the rest of your post when I'm wide awake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tomato wrote: |
I can think of one major doubt which I have had: I have wondered why the human species has developed mental faculties which seemingly served so little purpose in the wilderness. When did our prehistoric ancestors ever have to diagram sentences or calculate square roots?
Other Evolutionists have tried to explain this to me, but they never could explain it in words which I understand.
Alfred Russel Wallace, an Evolutionary theorist who lived at about the same time as Darwin, wondered the same thing. The only explanation he could think of is that the human species evolved much as Darwin said it did, but that God gave us an extra shot of intelligence somewhere along the line.
It's late at night right now.
I'll read the rest of your post when I'm wide awake. |
I suppose thats along similar lines to the question of human conciousness.
Anyway, looks like I am going to be a little busy for the next couple weeks, but I'll look in on the thread if and when I have time.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Then I will just post thoughts that come into my head, and people can feel free to explain them on an evolutionary basis.
Hmm... Which to eat first... 김밥 or 만두... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
Then I will just post thoughts that come into my head, and people can feel free to explain them on an evolutionary basis.
Hmm... Which to eat first... 김밥 or 만두... |
Ok then some thoughts for you and Tomato to consider:
1) Atheist doctors might kill you
Your Doctors religious beliefs- or lack of them- might have a lot to do with how early you exit this life. Remember my point earlier about beliefs in evolution vs sanctity of life?
Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient�s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.�
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825191656.htm
2) Nature is the source of successful design patents
Hre are just a few:
Embryo trick: Scientists inspired by the cilia that embryos use to direct cells to their places copied the trick with �biomimetic cilia� they hope to use with lab-on-a-chip applications.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/23/1005127107.short
Stickybot: Inspired by gecko feet, scientists at Stanford designed a look-alike robot, reported Science Daily, that uses the same principle of dry adhesion by multiplication of surface contacts.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826104135.htm
Perfect little engine: Ever heard of a salp? This small jelly-like creature lives in the sea and is important for carbon cycle. Science Daily told about its �near-perfect little engine� that propels it and filters its food with a microscopic mesh. Because �the scientists are captivated by the unique, almost magical performance of this natural undersea engine,� they think inventors could learn something. Science Daily asked, �What if trains, planes, and automobiles all were powered simply by the air through which they move? Moreover, what if their exhaust and byproducts helped the environment? Well, such an energy-efficient, self-propelling mechanism already exists in nature.�
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809161226.htm
Beetle bifocals: Scientists at the University of Cincinnati were stunned to find a diving beetle with bifocal compound eyes. Live Science reported that the eyes have two retinas, one for distance and one for close-up inspection. Analysis of how this unique beetle sees could help bifocal manufacture. �Bifocal glasses and contacts create two images that interfere with each other, creating an area of blur,� the article said. �The beetle larvae solve this interference problem by having focal planes are slightly shifted so they aren�t completely on top of each other. In fact, the researchers found the shift of the focal planes improved contrast of the resulting image three-fold.�
http://www.livescience.com/animals/bugs-bifocal-lenses-beetles-animal-vision-100824.html
Oyster glue: The Navy is employing �interdisciplinary, cutting-edge research� to copy oysters. The amazing underwater adhesives that oysters use are attractive to the Navy not only because of their importance to the marine ecology, but also because of the insights they provide. Naval researchers have been �studying marine animals� various adhesives, uncovering fundamental properties that could yield new innovations from replacements for medical sutures to surface coatings that keep waterborne craft from picking up marine hitchhikers,� the article said. They found that oysters have a unique adhesive for sticking to one another as they build oyster reefs.
Put on your bacteria: New Scientist posted an unusual article and video about researchers using bacteria to grow fibers for clothing. Such biodegradable clothing will be �green� not necessarily in color, but in the sense of being biodegradable and environmentally-friendly.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/08/bacteria-on-the-catwalk.html
Code in the nose: Inventors have been working on artificial noses for some time, with only mixed results at distinguishing the thousands of odors that natural noses are so good at detecting. PhysOrg reported that Stanford inventors are finding that a touch of DNA helps.
http://www.physorg.com/news201513882.html
The combinatorial flexibility of DNA is providing the coding repertoire for sensors to respond to many more molecules than before. Live Science added that frog egg cells are providing a key ingredient in robotic noses as receptors.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/frog-egg-cells-robotic-nose-100823.html
Cornea breakthrough: Synthetic corneas are too hard to make, and cornea transplants are expensive and difficult, so why not regrow the real thing? The BBC News reported that biosynthetic implants, using �a synthetic version of human collagen designed to mimic the cornea as closely as possible,� are providing real hope for restoring impaired vision. Already in tests patients reported �dramatically improved� vision with the new technique.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11071923
Pop goes the circuit: Manufacturing circuits inspired by bacteria? Why not? Synthetic circuits is a relatively new method within the �emerging field of synthetic biology� of organizing genetically-modified bacteria to �produce a myriad of useful proteins, enzymes or chemicals in a coordinated way.� Science Daily reported that scientists at Duke University were surprised to find bacterial cells popping, or committing suicide, when reaching a certain stage of plasmid density. They modeled the behavior with a sample circuit they called ePop and found that it can �increase the efficiency and power of future synthetic biology circuits.�
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809111236.htm
Flying with altitude: Somehow, fruit flies know the right altitude for their flying and hovering needs. Live Science reported that findings about how they calculate optic flow might help designers of �insect-inspired robots.� Mike Dickinson�s team at Caltech found that flies use horizontal edges and �integrate edge information with other visual information to pick flight plans.� This work not only helps �unveil the mysteries of insect flight and cognition, but it may have practical implications for humans, as well.�
http://www.livescience.com/animals/fruit-flies-edges-altitude-100820.html
The designs in nature are far superior to anything humans can think up. Yet evolutionists insist there is no evidence for intelligent design in nature? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Also whale-fin turbines |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
| Also whale-fin turbines |
Submarines are modelled on whales. The first designed subs were very unco-ordinated until they put fins on the side to enable them to "fly" through the water. Even the system of flooding and then pumping out water (allowing the sub to submerge) had to be copied from the sperm whale- which is able to dive to great depths by shifting oil around its body which then makes it denser and heavier.
Anyway..more food for thought here:
JPL Worker Sues Over Intelligent Design Demotion
Jet Propulsion Laboratory worker who distributed religious DVDs on the job is suing the JPL for discrimination after he was demoted.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10415473
Evidence for dark matter and energy found lacking
In a study released yesterday, a team of astronomers re-examined some of the most often-cited evidence for "dark matter" and "dark energy" and found that they could attribute all of that "evidence" to measurement error. This has forced the conventional astronomical community to reconsider whether two of the key pillars of the Big Bang theory actually exist
http://www.examiner.com/creationism-in-national/evidence-for-dark-matter-and-energy-found-lacking
New Hominid Species Not A Missing Link, Scientists Say
Sediba is debunked...
http://www.insidescience.org/research/new_hominid_species_not_a_missing_link_scientists_say
Ancient Hebrew text supports early origin of Bible
January 15th, 2010 5:53 pm ET.An ancient text, discovered recently near the Elah Valley in Israel, is the oldest Hebrew text thus far found and supports the notion that the Bible, and specifically certain key books of the Old Testament, were indeed written during the reign of King David and possibly earlier
http://www.examiner.com/creationism-in-national/ancient-hebrew-text-supports-early-origin-of-bible
http://www.nwcreation.net/news.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Email on Noah's Ark Find:
| Quote: |
I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).
To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut�s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn�t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters � something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Globutron wrote: |
Email on Noah's Ark Find:
| Quote: |
I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).
To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut�s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn�t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters � something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it. |
|
Right...It looks like the Kurdish guide presented fake pictures to extort money from the team.
However there are still several eyewitness reports and the sattelite image
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/27/article-1269165-0953E5A2000005DC-473_634x428.jpg
and this:
Photo: According to press materials supplied by Shamrock -- The Trinity Corporation, this satellite view shows Noah's Ark jutting out from the snow on Mt. Ararat. Image Courtesy of Digital Globe Satellite photos
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Ancient.Civ_Technol/040426.Noahs.Ark.html
Any thoughts on the slamander? Undermines tiktaalik pretty brutally wouldn't you say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Globutron
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Location: England/Anyang
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I assume you're aware that the link you provided is beneficial TOWARDS evolution, right? The very headline states
| Quote: |
| First steps on land, giant leap for evolution |
Also, Again you are using articles to prove something that only pages before you said are simple desperate conjecture. You simply can't do that and expect it to be a serious debate. This is pushing BACK time 20 million years. This can't be possible according to you.
Also, this is just backing us up in saying that evolutionists follow what they find, not what they want to find (95% of the time), which is more than I can say for the noah's ark people who specifically SET OUT to find what they ended up supposedly finding.
Paleontologists are not evolutionists by the way, they're paleontologists. So they are not desperate to prove something, but it certainly doesn't contradict. It's just a reforming theory.
I can say the same for the Dark Matter article I will read later. It was never told as being an accurate measurement. Scientists make it very clear that it's mysterious and unknown and baffling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
