Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
DNA preserves the integrity of its program
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Astrophile" data-source="post: 71744060" data-attributes="member: 338099"><p>Suppose that what you say is true, that the first bats appeared without parents or other ancestors by some unknown process. The fact remains that the first fossil bats date back to the Early Eocene epoch, about 52 million years ago - <a href="http://www.batworld.com/bat-evolution" target="_blank">http://www.batworld.com/bat-evolution</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene" target="_blank">Eocene - Wikipedia</a> . However, there are about 490 million years worth of fossiliferous rock systems extending back to the beginning of the Cambrian period, when the first fossils of animals with readily preserved hard shells appeared. However the first bats came into existence, they did not appear until long after non-avian dinosaurs, ammonites, ichthyosaurs, and trilobites had become extinct.</p><p></p><p>This means that the sudden appearance of bats doesn't give any support to a creation of the universe in six days, or the creation of animals in one day, nor does it support 'flood geology'. How, then, do you interpret the sudden appearance of bats in the context of the whole fossil record?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Astrophile, post: 71744060, member: 338099"] Suppose that what you say is true, that the first bats appeared without parents or other ancestors by some unknown process. The fact remains that the first fossil bats date back to the Early Eocene epoch, about 52 million years ago - [URL]http://www.batworld.com/bat-evolution[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene"]Eocene - Wikipedia[/URL] . However, there are about 490 million years worth of fossiliferous rock systems extending back to the beginning of the Cambrian period, when the first fossils of animals with readily preserved hard shells appeared. However the first bats came into existence, they did not appear until long after non-avian dinosaurs, ammonites, ichthyosaurs, and trilobites had become extinct. This means that the sudden appearance of bats doesn't give any support to a creation of the universe in six days, or the creation of animals in one day, nor does it support 'flood geology'. How, then, do you interpret the sudden appearance of bats in the context of the whole fossil record? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
DNA preserves the integrity of its program
Top
Bottom