Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

[AirPo]

They say there is no such thing as separation of church and state

"They're" wrong about that too.

 

[chris4243]

Yet there is no evidence macro is just micro on a greater time scale. Evolutionists have faith that it is, but can't prove it scientifically.

So what mechanism do you propose to cancel out the changes we see happening? And do you have any evidence of such a mechanism? You say small changes cannot add up to big changes, but have no evidence of it.

We only observe minor variations and mutations, not things 'evolving'...dogs remain dogs, fish remain fish etc. Evolutionists however believe dogs sprung from non-dogs and fish from non-fish. Theres the fairytale.

Yeah, or a poodle from a non-poodle. The changes that are supposed to happen in decades we can see happening before our very eyes. The changes that are supposed to happen in millions of years we see only in the fossil record. How strange, right?

 

[Hespera]

All roads led to Rome they said.

But what rule says that all threads must lead to discussing the AVocet?

 

[AV1611VET]

All roads led to Rome they said.

But what rule says that all threads must lead to discussing the AVocet?

In my case, they're not roads, they're vents.

People like to use me to vent their rage/anger/hate/whatever at God specifically, and at His children in general; and I'm the path of least resistance -- the weakest link -- the easiest target.

I don't mind sounding like a clown, if it'll make my points any clearer.

 

[chris4243]

All roads led to Rome they said.

But what rule says that all threads must lead to discussing the AVocet?

People, just add the human/bot hybrid to your ignore list and the stupidity goes away. It's not so hard; it's only a few clicks.

 

[Research1]

You say small changes cannot add up to big changes, but have no evidence of it.

You have no evidence micro leads to macro - since this has never been observed.

Yeah, or a poodle from a non-poodle. The changes that are supposed to happen in decades we can see happening before our very eyes.

??? This is selection made by man (animal domestication & breeding). Has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Research1]

We infer that mountains grow from very small changes. We have not been able to directly observe chemistry, but no-one tries to deny that it works, unbiblical as bio-chemistry may be. My son the astro-physicist assures me that we infer a whole lot of information about the sun and the stars from indirect information. What is your exact objection?

We infer evolution from the changes we can see, the changes we see in the fossil record (which incidentally does not feature rabbits in the precambrian! Why not?) and what we can see in the DNA of both extant and extinct species. All of these make a coherent, credible whole in the framework of evolution and look like a galactic joke outside of it.

Who 'infers' evolution from the evidence? There are thousands of scientists who look at the same stuff and don't believe in evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

People, just add the human/bot hybrid to your ignore list and the stupidity goes away. It's not so hard; it's only a few clicks.

It'll snow in Miami before they do that.

 

[gaara4158]

Who 'infers' evolution from the evidence? There are thousands of scientists who look at the same stuff and don't believe in evolution.

Not as many as you think. Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tomatoman]

I don't reject the real world, despite how many times I get falsely accused of it.

Your rejection of my Boolean standards make you think I do -- (as it should).

As your ridiculous standards put the real world in 3rd place behind a book of myths and a doctrine based on those myths, I'm not sure how you can maintain that you don't reject the real world. Your standards make it quite clear that the real world is way down the pecking order. If a classical scholar had to pretend all the greek and roman myths were true he'd end up spouting the same sort of nonsense you do, because he too would have to reject the real world.

If only you could see that.

 

[Hespera]

Who 'infers' evolution from the evidence? There are thousands of scientists who look at the same stuff and don't believe in evolution.

Fine; now, identify ONE of them who is any sort of biologist, and, one who has even ONE reason not to 'believe in' evolution OTHER THAN because he / she is a fundie.

There are btw millions of christians who do understand that evolution is real, far far more than there are scientists who dont believe in ti.

 

[Hespera]

People, just add the human/bot hybrid to your ignore list and the stupidity goes away. It's not so hard; it's only a few clicks.

did that a long time ago, and all threads still end up the same way

 

[Hespera]

You have no evidence micro leads to macro - since this has never been observed.



??? This is selection made by man (animal domestication & breeding). Has nothing to do with evolution.

You have no evidence micro leads to macro - since this has never been observed.

There is an enormous body of evidence in the fossil record.

And as for never observed, well, like i said, mountains wear down, if you want to say there is no evidence for that, you just look ridiculous!

??? This is selection made by man (animal domestication & breeding). Has nothing to do with evolution

Selection in nature is caused by many many different things. With dogs, people do the selecting.

Please identify what the functional difference is on a genetic level whether its the weather, or people who do the selecting.

 

[Greg1234]

There is an enormous body of evidence in the fossil record.

Like the Calaveras Skull A Case for the Calaveras Skull

 

[chris4243]

You have no evidence micro leads to macro - since this has never been observed.

Read the DNA. There's larger differences between more distantly related creatures. And we see DNA changing. So what's stopping the DNA from continuing to change?

And if macroevolution were to be observed, it would disprove the theory of evolution and we'd have to find a new theory. (depending on the definition of macroevolution).

??? This is selection made by man (animal domestication & breeding). Has nothing to do with evolution.

Doesn't it? If we can make such radical changes in decades by changing the selection of a species, why can't nature do the same? Nature is not static; for example guess what happens to birds when the size of the seeds they eat change? Genetic selection for matching beak size. Whatever you think, there were not poodles before and now there are. What's stopping other species from diverging into genetically distinct groups?

 

[Hespera]

Like the Calaveras Skull A Case for the Calaveras Skull

Well no. That was well over a hundred years ago, and its been nearly that long since the last person with a lick of sense thought there was anything to it.

wiki sums it...

Furthermore, John C. Scribner, a local shopkeeper, claimed to have planted it, and the story was revealed by his sister after his death.[4] Radiocarbon dating in 1992 established the age of the skull at about 1,000 years, placing it in the late Holocene age.[7] Despite evidence to the contrary, the Calaveras Skull continues to be cited by creationists as proof that paleontologists ignore evidence that doesn't fit their theories,[8][9] although others have acknowledged that the Calaveras Skull is a hoax.[10]


We expect no better than this from creos and we never get anything better.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

As your ridiculous standards put the real world in 3rd place behind a book of myths and a doctrine based on those myths, I'm not sure how you can maintain that you don't reject the real world. Your standards make it quite clear that the real world is way down the pecking order. If a classical scholar had to pretend all the greek and roman myths were true he'd end up spouting the same sort of nonsense you do, because he too would have to reject the real world.

If only you could see that.

This is one of the main problems with religions. They are all divergent, allowing anyone to believe what they want to, cherry picking verses to support their paper mache reality. Everyone from the Westboro Baptist bigots, Harold Camping, the Acts 2:38 crowd, ad infinitum... all have what they believe justifiable reasons for their worldview. There is no kind of checks and balances in order to check their views with reality. Every religious person believes their view to be correct, and all others to be wrong. It is truly tragic that they can't even see this.

 

[Greg1234]

Well no. That was well over a hundred years ago, and its been nearly that long since the last person with a lick of sense thought there was anything to it.

wiki sums it...

Furthermore, John C. Scribner, a local shopkeeper, claimed to have planted it, and the story was revealed by his sister after his death.[4] Radiocarbon dating in 1992 established the age of the skull at about 1,000 years, placing it in the late Holocene age.[7] Despite evidence to the contrary, the Calaveras Skull continues to be cited by creationists as proof that paleontologists ignore evidence that doesn't fit their theories,[8][9] although others have acknowledged that the Calaveras Skull is a hoax.[10]


We expect no better than this from creos and we never get anything better.

This was already covered in the article provided.

 

[Hespera]

This was already covered in the article provided.

What point did you want to make with that moldy hoax?

 

[rjc34]

This was already covered in the article provided.

I'm going to trust the well-referenced Wikipedia article over a obviously biased site called 'creationhistory.com'...

Most if not all of their 'evidence' is essentially from studies and observations taken over a century ago. The conclusion from the 1992 paper was the it was clearly less than a 1000 years old, and it's even included in the article. (Of course with unnecessary emphasis added in a weak attempt to discredit the conclusion...)