Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

[USincognito]

I changed it, go back to my edited post. And good night.

I guess she's still asleep.

 

[USincognito]

i can add another evidence. for instance: according to scientific papers DNA cant survive more then 100,000 years. and yet we have found such DNA from fossils that suppose to be 20 my old.

Citation?

 

[xianghua]

Information? no.

here is one example: "Another problem for evolutionists is the ‘Little Mountain Monkey’ of South America. DNA comparisons suggests that this little South American marsupial is more similar to the Australian marsupials than to other American ones. How did it end up in America? It seems very difficult to argue that it evolved there."-

so when we see evidence that contradict evolutioney predictions they just make a new theory claiming that some species just arrived by a floating raft.

 

[xianghua]

Citation?

citation for what part?

 

[Armoured]

i can add another evidence. for instance: according to scientific papers DNA cant survive more then 100,000 years. and yet we have found such DNA from fossils that suppose to be 20 my old.

Can you cite these scientific papers?

 

[xianghua]

Can you cite these scientific papers?

yep search for the paper : "Biomolecules in fossil remains". you will see at table 1 the upper limit of DNA degeneration is about 2500 years at 20c.

 

[Jimmy D]

DNA cant survive more then 100,000 year

Don't you mean that it's unlikely to survive more than 100,000 years?

 

[Armoured]

yep search for the paper : "Biomolecules in fossil remains". you will see at table 1 the upper limit of DNA degeneration is about 2500 years at 20c.

I'm not doing your work for you. You made the claim, you provide the source.

 

[xianghua]

Don't you mean that it's unlikely to survive more than 100,000 years?

if we go by the evidence then we cant claim that a DNA can survive so much time.

 

[xianghua]

I'm not doing your work for you. You made the claim, you provide the source.

here (the first one):

biomolecule in fossil remain - Google Search

 

[Armoured]

here (the first one):

biomolecule in fossil remain - Google Search

No. It's a Google search. How about just a straight quote and link?

 

[Armoured]

if we go by the evidence then we cant claim that a DNA can survive so much time.

If someone's claimed DNA can't survive that long, then someone else proves it can, that disproves the claim about DNA, not evolution. But by all means, keep digging.

 

[xianghua]

No. It's a Google search. How about just a straight quote and link?

its a pdf file. so as far as i know it will be illegal. what is the problem realy? get into the paper and see table 1. its very easy.

 

[Armoured]

its a pdf file. so as far as i know it will be illegal. what is the problem realy? get into the paper and see table 1. its very easy.

It's not illegal to cite articles. With the best will in the world, you're pretty obviously unfamiliar with how academic citation and discussion works, which, being honest, doesn't really make me think you're familiar enough with the material to be able to produce the golden debunking that Creationists have been looking for all this time.

Feel free to prove me wrong. But anyway, as I said, showing that the time estimate for how long DNA can survive doesn't disprove evolution.

Hey, it's great that you're interested, but please do some more reading. Maybe even a course, if you're really interested.

 

[Allandavid]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Also written by men.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi leslie,

I understand. However, what I know is that if God wants to split the U.S. into two pieces and separate them by 1,000 miles of water, He can do it before you take your next breath.

Why, yes... if one allows for magic, then nothing is impossible off course.

You or I don't honestly have a clue the forces against the land when the springs of the deep were opened.

Actually, we do... thanks to this little thing called physics.
But, again... if one allows magic to override physics... well... again nothing is impossible.

Where the Atlantic Ocean sits right now could well be where one of the large springs of the deep opened up and split the continents hundreds of miles apart. The Mariana trench could actually be where all that water came out of the earth. I'm just throwing these out as possibilities

The problem is that your "possibilities" aren't any more plausible then last thursdayism, the matrix, or any other unfalsifiable shenannigans for which there does not exist one iota of evidence.

I don't know, but I also know that neither do you.

If you don't know.... then that is where the conversation ends.
Not knowing is not a valid reason for then suggesting all kinds of supernatural shenannigans.

When you don't know... just say you don't know.

You claim that the north american and european continents are moving apart at 2cm/yr. That's fine and for today that may well be true. What proof do you have that for every year of the last 6,000 years that 2cm drift has been the only phenomenon that has separated the two continents?

Physics and geology.
But once more... if you allow "magic" to override the realities of physics and geology...

How do you know that at some point in history past the continents didn't suddenly separate by hundreds of miles in a near instant and then settled to this 2cm drift after the main event?

Geology and physics.
Not a single land animal would survive such an event.

Unless "magic", off course.

You honestly don't have a clue what happened to the earth 4,500 years ago when the flood waters were over the whole earth.

There never were "flood waters over the whole earth".
Again: geology and physics.

You're merely listening to science today tell you that this 2cm drift is occurring today.

"merely" doesn't really do it justice...
Science is the best method we have at our disposal to answer such questions.

Just because you happen to read some rather fantastical story in an ancient book that was written by people who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun... that doesn't change the validity of scientific inquiry.

You rely on the very science you are arguing against here, every day of the week.

Scientific knowledge is pretty much interconnected accross fields and stuff.
Take radio-metric dating for example. That practice is based on our theoretical knowledge of atoms and the physics thereof.
That very theory, is also the knowledge backing technologies like nuclear bombs, power stations, micro-chips, etc.

You can't just run around and pick on a single practical application to argue against a theory, while ignoring all the other practical applications that are based on the exact same theoretical model.

I don't have any problem with that being the truth of what's happening today. I'm just not convinced that there is any assurance that in the last 6,000 years of earth's history that such drift has always been some constant of the effect.

Maybe you should inform yourself on what the effect is of this tectonic activity in terms of volcanism, earthquakes, flooding, climate change,etc ... and specifically how that effect changes when the activity intensifies.

And then realise how utterly ridiculous it is to suggest that at some point this activity resulted in continents moving apart hundreds of miles per hour. Or even only a few miles.

Not only would that bring about an apocalypse on the scale the earth has never seen before, what it would also do is leave traces and evidence behind that we could observe and study in the present, which would allow us to conclude that such events happened in the past.

Needless to say, such evidence does not exist in any way, shape or form.

Your claims is thus pure fantasy that demonstrably never happened.
Unless you allow for magic, off course...

"magic" made everything survive
"magic" stopped the apocalypse
"magic" removed all trace evidence of this event

And an undetectable pink unicorn is sitting on my shoulder.

Do you have someone's testimony of what happened 4500 years ago upon the earth?

Testimony is the lowest form of evidence. Not to mention unecessary.
For example.... I don't require a "testimony" of an "eye-witness" to determine that there was a fire here:

Just by investigating this debris, an expert might even be able to tell you how and where the fire started.

Evidence. It works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi speedweel,

Well, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree that geologists can read the evidence of the things that God has done.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Gratz, you've basicaly just thrown all of science under the bus....

You've also deleted any and every chance of ever again convicting someone of a crime. Because in your world, evidence in the present can't be used to determine things from the past.

In other words, if DNA at a crime scene indicates that person X is guilty, then that is meaningless, because perhaps supernatural entities planted that DNA at the scene.

Great

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi speedwell,

None. And please don't feel like you have to believe as I do. But, I hope you will appreciate that there are enough holes in the various theories of man that I'm not going to believe as you do either. Man can come up with all sorts of theories based on the natural properties of things, but he has no way of actually proving that any such theories of things that happened in ages past is or isn't correct. He can only assume that because his methodology is pure and does fit correctly in the here and now, that his findings must be correct as to what happened in the ages past. I don't have that much faith in the wisdom of man.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I can't "prove" to you that you'll plummeth to your death if you jump from the empire state building. But if I were you, I'ld go ahead and accept it as so likely, you might as well call it a fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi speedwell,

No, God has not planted any evidence of an ancient past.

Then there is no reason to assume that the past was not as the evidence indicates.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The rate the sun is burning up and becoming smaller. If the earth was billions of years old, the sun would have consumed earth then. Especially, flesh and blood.

lol, wut?

Regardless, evolution theory is a theory of biology. It deals with organic living things that reproduce with variation.

It doesn't deal with astronomy, cosmology, astro-physics, thermo-dynamics, etc etc.

Evolution is about how living things adapt to an ever-changing environment through the generations.