But that's "microevolution," so its OK.
Then it is absolutely useless, since the ToE is true. If you believe it refuted the ToE, then you're wrong again. Until today the ToE is teached and applied at every science department of every university wordl wide. The US inluded.
There is no such an altar. You are telling lies.
West Virginia, 1944. What else WAS THERE but coal mines? Where else did coal come from?
Correct, which means that coal doesn't take 100 million years to form.
I don't have an explanation, just as I don't have a perfect explanation for the gears, thimbles, gold chains and other objects found in solid lumps of caol. Obviously things that were man made found their way into something that became coal, and obviously the coal formed in a shorter period of time than we are told.
From Skaloop's link:
Considering you didn't understand that a polygraph is a lie detector, I'll file your opinion appropriately.
Considering how many reports there are of things found in coal and how widespread, it must be denial on your part. Again, an argument from incredulity.
No, it's an absolute fabrication of man. It's so ridiculous that if it were introduced today it could never get published. Only those truly deperate for an excuse to deny the Creator or dillute His authority would believe it.
The ToE has nothing to refute. It's junk science wrapped in denial and secured with wild assertions that can't be replicated about a time that can't be observed.
Is teached? Were you teached it? You DO know that popularity and validity are different things, right? Being taught a false theory and then re-teaching a flase theory does not make the thory any more accurate.
Ad hoc flame. Every word that procedes from the mouth of an evolutionists is false. See, I can do that too.
If Jesus Christ, who WAS there to witness the beginning of the earth, affirmed that the Scriptures were accurate and that Adam, Eve and Noah's family were real people and the flood was a real event, wouldn't it make sense that those who follow Him would take His word for it? Jesus believed in the creation as written because he KNEW it was true.
You SERIOUS don't know what an allegory is, do you?
CO2 from coal would also not be a problem in that case, since coal should be acting as a CO2 sink. In that case, we also shouldn't be seeing the C12 / C13 ratio effect of increased levels of CO2 due to fossil fuel combustion.
It is still being published today and in peer-reviewed scientifc journals. Don't believe me? here is a Pub Med search for "evolution"
Assertion and bluster. Go ahead and publish your refutation of the theory of evolution. You can then collect your Noble prize.
I agree. yet, that is what these "creation ministry" websites you are so fond of do all the time. You don't seem to have a problem with them.
He never affirmed any such thing, even assuming the Gospels are accurate.
You are the ones who can't seem to understand what an allegory is. Hint: If it has talking animals and a flaming sword in it, it is an allegory.
Look into the mirror next time you say that.
It was in the coal. That's where coal is found.
How do you have explanations for things you do not believe are true?
In the links I saw, they weren't sure. They weren't sure of its origin, either.
Like a hammer in 600 million year old rock?
Guys! Geez! If it's on the internet it HAS to be true! I mean seriously!
Do you really think that newspapers in 1944 put their publication online so we could link to it? Do you even think before writing this stuff?
Why waste a good crayon?
