Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yet they deny that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real and the people we read about in the Bible were descended from them. Even though the DNA evidence shows us that most of the people living on the Arab continental plate are descended from Abraham.Yet everyone who has studied or work in fields related to the TOE claim that common descent is one of, if not, the strongest and best supported theory in science.
so we can see that they dont break up into many small pieces.[/QUOTE
-_- whether or not they break apart would depend upon their composition, and distance from the ground. Just because I managed to find ONE cave, and literally only one cave, in which large stalactites could be seen on the ground in one piece does not mean that stalactites that fall to the floor normally remain in one piece. Heck, the fact that I only found one picture like that would suggest that this is the exception rather than the norm.
they are also too few. if indeed they break up every 10000 years and lets say that the cave age is about 1my we should find much more then few pieces.[/QUOTE
-_- ever think they might get covered up by forming stalagmites? Or dissolve, for that matter.
-_- I don't know what you are talking about, since that ground is all chunky from fallen rocks.very unlikely. here is a new cave that found no long time ago (still close to visitors as far as i know and even its location being kept secret):
and again we can see the same result. (image from timesofisrael.com)
Also, you never answered my question: wouldn't it be better to use stalagmites rather than stalactites, because they are more structurally stable and form essentially the same way?Also, you never answered my question: wouldn't it be better to use stalagmites rather than stalactites, because they are more structurally stable and form essentially the same way?
Yet they deny that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real and the people we read about in the Bible were descended from them. Even though the DNA evidence shows us that most of the people living on the Arab continental plate are descended from Abraham.
Really Brad?
A sequence of Equid fossils that paleontologists accept as a geat example has been presented.. unfortunately it didn't meet you unrealistic demands. (By the way, my response to your "rib" objection was ignored.) Besides only a tiny percentage of the flora and fauna that has ever existed undergoes fossilization, and they're difficult to find - It still paints a very clear picture to anyone with an open mind though.... and it ain't special creation.
Not that we particularly rely on the fossil record for evidence anyway.
I won't even dignify that with an answer given the examples presented in this thread.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Yet everyone who has studied or work in fields related to the TOE claim that common descent is one of, if not, the strongest and best supported theory in science. Yet the only objections come from those with religious reasons to reject it. Yet it's an applied science that has real world applications. Yet empirical evidence exists which cannot be otherwise explained.
The majority of your posts in this thread are merely parrotting creationist PRATTs suggesting that you have little interest in actually learning about these subjects. I suggest a change in reading material, you might find the answers to the questions you asked above - no one is here to spoon feed you.
As a side note here I notice that everyone seems to have decided to ignore the facts that I pointed out about no true evidence supporting evolution.
Yet they deny that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real
and the people we read about in the Bible were descended from them.
Even though the DNA evidence shows us that most of the people living on the Arab continental plate are descended from Abraham.
Man (who was given dominion over creation sinned) and death entered into all of creation as a result of our curse. This curse effected all of creation.
Anything "broken" ...see above answer.
Please allow me to direct your attention to a little court case that you seem to be unfamiliar with which set precedence for the entire country in 2013 entitled the "Fair Use Act":
So please stop accusing Christians of dishonesty when they have done nothing of the sort.
If you were truly interested in the truth at all you would have at least attempted to address the issues raised rather than to "distract" by whining about plagiarism.
As a side note here I notice that everyone seems to have decided to ignore the facts that I pointed out about no true evidence supporting evolution.
Not a single example of a finely graduated chain between major forms has ever been presented, and no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists. Without anything like these the theory of universal common decent is just a bed time story nothing more.
Really Brad? A sequence of Equid fossils that paleontologists accept as a geat example has been presented.. unfortunately it didn't meet you unrealistic demands. (By the way, my response to your "rib" objection was ignored.)
Not that we particularly rely on the fossil record for evidence anyway.
I won't even dignify that with an answer given the examples presented in this thread.
Yet everyone who has studied or work in fields related to the TOE claim that common descent is one of, if not, the strongest and best supported theory in science. Yet the only objections come from those with religious reasons to reject it.
and no examples of new and beneficial gene changing type mutations in the genome of a multi celled organism exists.
I am afraid that you have confused "copyright" with "plagiarism":
What is Plagiarism? - Plagiarism.org
All of the following are considered plagiarism:
-turning in someone else's work as your own
-copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
-failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
-giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
-changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
Religious people don't know enough about science to make that call.It is not rejected for religious reasons. It is rejected because religious people are not willing to just toss out the possibility of special creation. Thus for scientific reasons we reject the conclusions that main stream science are arriving at because they do.
Religious people don't know enough about science to make that call.
Isn't it so awesome how creationists demand ultra-detailed, step-by-step, evidence backed 100% (to their liking, anyway)
You've been given examples of beneficial mutations. Either you've already forgotten or you ignored them.
To the evolution deniers
So what does "Special Creation" mean to you in terms of the fossil record? A continuous sequence of de novo species creation and extinction events such that the extinct species, if arranged in time order, appear to form a developmental series?If no such evidence exists then just admit that when it comes to a debate between evolution and creation, there is no clear evidence proving one over the other in the fossils.
Let me just ask a couple of questions if you please. At the moons current drift rate of 1.5 inches a year that means that it was only about 750 feet closer around 6000 years ago. How much closer at the same rate of drift was it during the assumed life time of T-Rex?
Yeah, I suppose the irony is lost over the webz. My point being, no religious person with relevant training in paleontology would ever make that claim.A lot do Hitch to be fair, I don’t include Brad in that though, given his comments on well documented mutations above.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?