Science Disproves Evolution

[LarsMac]

This is a fascinating read:



Rattling conventional thinking on Evolution

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1524596 wrote: According to preliminary sequences from 2010, 99.7% of the nucleotide sequences of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of sequences with the chimpanzee.


Humans and chickens share 65 percent of the same genes. Dogs and Humans share 84 percent of our DNA.Mice and humans share 90 percent of the same DNA. And compared to sharing 50-60% of our Genes with Bananas.

[xfrodobagginsx]

FourPart;1524602 wrote: The very fact that you refer to Neanderthal as being "Half-Monkey" demonstrates that you have no understanding of how Evolution works.

Neanderthals were never our Ancestors, they were our Cousins, in the same way as Chimpanzees are. They went off on one divergence of evolution, and failed. As a consequence they became extinct. We went on another branch and succeeded.

When you get 2 apples on a tree on different branches, one is not an ancestor of the other. They do, however, have a common ancestor, namely the branch that both of their branches share, right down to the common trunk. Furthermore, dependant on conditions, the apples on one branch may thrive whilst those on the others fail.

By describing Evolution as a Religion demonstrates that you don't even have any concept of what a Religion is. Let me enlighten you...

noun: religion the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion" synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More sect, cult, religious group, faith community, church, denomination, body, following, persuasion, affiliation "the right to freedom of religion" a particular system of faith and worship. plural noun: religions "the world's great religions" a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. "consumerism is the new religion"

A belief in Evolution has nothing to do with belief in a Superhuman or an Afterlife, as Religions do. It is also not exclusively non-Religious. After all, even the Catholic Church freely accepts Evolution as a Scientific fact now (although it goes on to accredit their God as having been responsible for it).

You are correct, however, in describing Evolution as 'Godless', as it is not reliant on a non-exsistant being. It is a simple demonstrable fact of Nature.


Neaderthals are just another breed of human. There are variations within the human species, just as their is back, white, asian, indian, ect. All are still human, but variations. No half breeds. There is no evidence that we are cousins, just the assertion of some evolutionists that found a race of men that is a bit out of the ordinary. I understand what you are trying to say and that evolutionists claim that we are their cousins, but I don't believe it.

Evolution is a religion in that those who adhere to it must exercise FAITH in order to believe it because it has so many areas lacking in evidence. Many of those who believe in it, refuse to consider that it might not be true and that there may be an alternate explanation. That's because their FAITH in it is so strong. How did life evolve from non life in the first place? ABIOGENESIS. It's never been observed, seen or reproduced, yet you believe it by FAITH. How did the two sexes evolve? The odds are astronomical against it.

Evolution is NOT a demonstrable fact of nature. In fact, it ONLY occurs on a micro level. You NEVER see once an animal kind evolve into another. No half horse, half moose, no half dog, half cat, ect. Not only is there a missing link, but there are missing links from every animal kind.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Where is the eyeroll button????

[xfrodobagginsx]

Age of the earth

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1524659 wrote: Age of the earth

https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1524662 wrote:



Which of the 101 pieces of evidence are you laughing at and what are your reasons?

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1524678 wrote: Which of the 101 pieces of evidence are you laughing at and what are your reasons?


The whole Kit an Caboodle.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1524682 wrote: The whole Kit an Caboodle.


Or do you mean Kibbles and Bits?

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ever heard of Kal Can?

[xfrodobagginsx]

School board wants Kentucky Noah's Ark to pay higher taxes

https://www.wnd.com/2019/08/school-boar ... her-taxes/

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1524732 wrote: School board wants Kentucky Noah's Ark to pay higher taxes

https://www.wnd.com/2019/08/school-boar ... her-taxes/


Ken Ham the Tax Dodge.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1524735 wrote: Ken Ham the Tax Dodge.


Ken Ham is a good man and pays his taxes according to the law.

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1524745 wrote: Ken Ham is a good man and pays his taxes according to the law.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ken-ham- ... 61da5a5ba9

I love it when people say "According to the Law"

[Ted]

Be away for a while and it is still the same old same old.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1524748 wrote: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ken-ham- ... 61da5a5ba9

I love it when people say "According to the Law"


Who doesn't try to pay as little taxes as possible? Are you saying that you don't write anything off of your taxes?

[xfrodobagginsx]

xfrodobagginsx;1524781 wrote: Who doesn't try to pay as little taxes as possible? Are you saying that you don't write anything off of your taxes?


Well? Do you use your write offs or not?

[FourPart]

xfrodobagginsx;1524639 wrote: Neaderthals are just another breed of human. There are variations within the human species, just as their is back, white, asian, indian, ect. All are still human, but variations. No half breeds. There is no evidence that we are cousins, just the assertion of some evolutionists that found a race of men that is a bit out of the ordinary. I understand what you are trying to say and that evolutionists claim that we are their cousins, but I don't believe it.

There is a plethora of evidence from Gene Mapping.

With evolution differences branch off. To start with they can interbreed, but after a while they become aspeciated & can no longer do so. Neanderthals had branched off, although it is true that they were still sufficiently closely related so as to interbreed. As you said, there has been a degree of Evolution amid humans inasmuch as there are Black, White, Asian, etc, which are distinguishable by skeletal structure. The Black gene is the dominant one, but they are still interbreedable.

Evolution is a religion in that those who adhere to it must exercise FAITH in order to believe it because it has so many areas lacking in evidence. Many of those who believe in it, refuse to consider that it might not be true and that there may be an alternate explanation. That's because their FAITH in it is so strong. How did life evolve from non life in the first place? ABIOGENESIS. It's never been observed, seen or reproduced, yet you believe it by FAITH. How did the two sexes evolve? The odds are astronomical against it.

Faith, by definition, has no need of evidence. Religion, by definition requires a Deity, usually with an After Life as well.

Evolutionism has nothing to do with Religion. It is not exclusive to Atheism, as most Religions also accept Evolution as a Scientific Fact.

Science, by definition relies on Evidence first. It then forms a Hypothesis to explain the Evidence. It then performs experiments & makes predictions to try to falsify the Hypothsis. After much testing it finally becomes elevated to the state of a Theory. It cannot reach the level of a Theory without all the Evidence to back it up.

Evolution is NOT a demonstrable fact of nature. In fact, it ONLY occurs on a micro level. You NEVER see once an animal kind evolve into another. No half horse, half moose, no half dog, half cat, ect. Not only is there a missing link, but there are missing links from every animal kind.


Of course you never see one animal evolving into another. That's not how evolution works. Why is it that Creationists can never get a grasp on exactly what Evolution is. Creationists always come up with the same arguments about dogs biving birth to a cat, and the like, which only serves to demonstrate even more that they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

There is no difference between Macro Eveolution & Micro Evolution. It's just that when you get multiple "Micro Evolutions" eventually they add up to a "Macro Evolution". At which point do you decide that one is no longer the other?

Evolution has been observed time & time again. Most modern medicine relies on observing it & modifying it accordingly. It is the similarity between other cousins, such as pigs, which make them ideal for transplanting of body parts.

The fact that animals have vestigial organs is also a demonstration of how evolution is a fact - such as they fact that whales have fingers, toes & kneecaps. Why Emus have a claw on their wings. Why humans have an appendix - as well as a tail bone. Furthermore, all mammals have exactly the same bones, just in different proportions & shapes - often serving different purposes.

Evolutionists have never made the claim of something coming from nothing. Evolutionism has nothing to do with the initial Creation of Life. Evolution is, by definition, to do with the changing of existing life. However, all life is made up of exactly the same type of atoms & molecules as the rest of the Universe. After all, we are more than 90% water - the most common molecule in the Universe, mainly made up of Hydrogen - the most common element in the Universe, which is also made up of Oxygen, which life requires to exist.

I half expect you to come up with the usual argument of a Universe designed for us when the vast majority of the Universe couldn't be more hostile to us. But you are like Douglas Adams charactature of the puddle which believes that the hole is Intelligently Designed for him, because he fits the shape of the whole so perfectly.

Life evolves to suit its environment - not the other way round. If the environment changes & life doesn't evolve it dies out. Those that are best suited to the changes survive to pass on those genes to the next generation.

You really should watch some of the Atheist Experience videos on YouTube. Better still, phone in when they're live - preferably when Matt Dillahunty's hosting. He'll make mincemeat of you.

One example...

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ted;1524756 wrote: Be away for a while and it is still the same old same old.


You mean been away for a while...

[xfrodobagginsx]

FourPart;1524801 wrote: There is a plethora of evidence from Gene Mapping.

With evolution differences branch off. To start with they can interbreed, but after a while they become aspeciated & can no longer do so. Neanderthals had branched off, although it is true that they were still sufficiently closely related so as to interbreed. As you said, there has been a degree of Evolution amid humans inasmuch as there are Black, White, Asian, etc, which are distinguishable by skeletal structure. The Black gene is the dominant one, but they are still interbreedable.

Faith, by definition, has no need of evidence. Religion, by definition requires a Deity, usually with an After Life as well.

Evolutionism has nothing to do with Religion. It is not exclusive to Atheism, as most Religions also accept Evolution as a Scientific Fact.

Science, by definition relies on Evidence first. It then forms a Hypothesis to explain the Evidence. It then performs experiments & makes predictions to try to falsify the Hypothsis. After much testing it finally becomes elevated to the state of a Theory. It cannot reach the level of a Theory without all the Evidence to back it up.

Evolution is NOT a demonstrable fact of nature. In fact, it ONLY occurs on a micro level. You NEVER see once an animal kind evolve into another. No half horse, half moose, no half dog, half cat, ect. Not only is there a missing link, but there are missing links from every animal kind.


Of course you never see one animal evolving into another. That's not how evolution works. Why is it that Creationists can never get a grasp on exactly what Evolution is. Creationists always come up with the same arguments about dogs biving birth to a cat, and the like, which only serves to demonstrate even more that they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

There is no difference between Macro Eveolution & Micro Evolution. It's just that when you get multiple "Micro Evolutions" eventually they add up to a "Macro Evolution". At which point do you decide that one is no longer the other?

Evolution has been observed time & time again. Most modern medicine relies on observing it & modifying it accordingly. It is the similarity between other cousins, such as pigs, which make them ideal for transplanting of body parts.

The fact that animals have vestigial organs is also a demonstration of how evolution is a fact - such as they fact that whales have fingers, toes & kneecaps. Why Emus have a claw on their wings. Why humans have an appendix - as well as a tail bone. Furthermore, all mammals have exactly the same bones, just in different proportions & shapes - often serving different purposes.

Evolutionists have never made the claim of something coming from nothing. Evolutionism has nothing to do with the initial Creation of Life. Evolution is, by definition, to do with the changing of existing life. However, all life is made up of exactly the same type of atoms & molecules as the rest of the Universe. After all, we are more than 90% water - the most common molecule in the Universe, mainly made up of Hydrogen - the most common element in the Universe, which is also made up of Oxygen, which life requires to exist.

I half expect you to come up with the usual argument of a Universe designed for us when the vast majority of the Universe couldn't be more hostile to us. But you are like Douglas Adams charactature of the puddle which believes that the hole is Intelligently Designed for him, because he fits the shape of the whole so perfectly.

Life evolves to suit its environment - not the other way round. If the environment changes & life doesn't evolve it dies out. Those that are best suited to the changes survive to pass on those genes to the next generation.

You really should watch some of the Atheist Experience videos on YouTube. Better still, phone in when they're live - preferably when Matt Dillahunty's hosting. He'll make mincemeat of you.

One example...




Gene mapping shows that all of the creatures in the world came together at the same time, which baffles evolutionists, but not creationists. I know what you believe because I learned all about it in School myself. How much time did you spend studying the Creationist side of the story?

True, Faith requires no evidence, however, my Faith is backed up by the evidence. Evolution is an Atheistic way of trying to explain the Universe without a God and it IS a religion because it requires Faith to due much lacking evidence in many areas.

Micro Evolution has been observed, but that's not Darwinian Evolution. Macro Evolution has NEVER been observed. You only see examples of Lateral Adaptation or Micro Evolution. It's not the same as one animal kind evolving into another. That has NEVER been observed.

These so called Vestigial organs are not vestigial. They just can't always explain their function until later. The Appendix is an example of what they used to call Vestigial, but now they know that there is a function. There are many other examples.

There is a HUGE difference between Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution because Macro Evolution requires an INCREASE in genetic information, but Micro Evolution does not. Big difference. An INCREASE in Genetic Information due to a Mutation has never been observed and even Richard Dawkins himself had to admit this.

Turn on Tune In Radio, WMUZ and listen to The Bob Dutko Show, M-F from 12pm-4pm. He debates and destroys PHD Evolutionsts on a regular basis. You can even call into his show on Fridays. You should call in and make him look stupid. I would gladly listen.

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1524823 wrote: Of course you never see one animal evolving into another. That's not how evolution works. Why is it that Creationists can never get a grasp on exactly what Evolution is. Creationists always come up with the same arguments about dogs biving birth to a cat, and the like, which only serves to demonstrate even more that they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

There is no difference between Macro Eveolution & Micro Evolution. It's just that when you get multiple "Micro Evolutions" eventually they add up to a "Macro Evolution". At which point do you decide that one is no longer the other?

Evolution has been observed time & time again. Most modern medicine relies on observing it & modifying it accordingly. It is the similarity between other cousins, such as pigs, which make them ideal for transplanting of body parts.

The fact that animals have vestigial organs is also a demonstration of how evolution is a fact - such as they fact that whales have fingers, toes & kneecaps. Why Emus have a claw on their wings. Why humans have an appendix - as well as a tail bone. Furthermore, all mammals have exactly the same bones, just in different proportions & shapes - often serving different purposes.

Evolutionists have never made the claim of something coming from nothing. Evolutionism has nothing to do with the initial Creation of Life. Evolution is, by definition, to do with the changing of existing life. However, all life is made up of exactly the same type of atoms & molecules as the rest of the Universe. After all, we are more than 90% water - the most common molecule in the Universe, mainly made up of Hydrogen - the most common element in the Universe, which is also made up of Oxygen, which life requires to exist.

I half expect you to come up with the usual argument of a Universe designed for us when the vast majority of the Universe couldn't be more hostile to us. But you are like Douglas Adams charactature of the puddle which believes that the hole is Intelligently Designed for him, because he fits the shape of the whole so perfectly.

Life evolves to suit its environment - not the other way round. If the environment changes & life doesn't evolve it dies out. Those that are best suited to the changes survive to pass on those genes to the next generation.

You really should watch some of the Atheist Experience videos on YouTube. Better still, phone in when they're live - preferably when Matt Dillahunty's hosting. He'll make mincemeat of you.

One example...





Gene mapping shows that all of the creatures in the world came together at the same time, which baffles evolutionists, but not creationists. I know what you believe because I learned all about it in School myself. How much time did you spend studying the Creationist side of the story?

True, Faith requires no evidence, however, my Faith is backed up by the evidence. Evolution is an Atheistic way of trying to explain the Universe without a God and it IS a religion because it requires Faith to due much lacking evidence in many areas.

Micro Evolution has been observed, but that's not Darwinian Evolution. Macro Evolution has NEVER been observed. You only see examples of Lateral Adaptation or Micro Evolution. It's not the same as one animal kind evolving into another. That has NEVER been observed.

These so called Vestigial organs are not vestigial. They just can't always explain their function until later. The Appendix is an example of what they used to call Vestigial, but now they know that there is a function. There are many other examples.

There is a HUGE difference between Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution because Macro Evolution requires an INCREASE in genetic information, but Micro Evolution does not. Big difference. An INCREASE in Genetic Information due to a Mutation has never been observed and even Richard Dawkins himself had to admit this.

Turn on Tune In Radio, WMUZ and listen to The Bob Dutko Show, M-F from 12pm-4pm. He debates and destroys PHD Evolutionsts on a regular basis. You can even call into his show on Fridays. You should call in and make him look stupid. I would gladly listen.


Micro and macro evolution are inventions of the Creationists.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1524826 wrote: Micro and macro evolution are inventions of the Creationists.


No, they aren't. That's why you don't see missing links between the animal kinds. If evolution were true, there should be more transitional fossils in the record than other fossils, but there aren't any transitional fossils.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Rock-dating techniques throw evolution in question



https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/rock-dating ... -question/

[xfrodobagginsx]

xfrodobagginsx;1524877 wrote: Rock-dating techniques throw evolution in question



https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/rock-dating ... -question/


Like I said, there is a LOT of evidence on the other side. You should at least look at it and have actual reasons for rejecting it.

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1524909 wrote: Like I said, there is a LOT of evidence on the other side. You should at least look at it and have actual reasons for rejecting it.


[sigh]

I have been looking at the "evidence" for years, and years.

I don't need a reason to reject the arguments. They simply don't stand up. What you would need to do is give me a reason for accepting them.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1524913 wrote: [sigh]

I have been looking at the "evidence" for years, and years.

I don't need a reason to reject the arguments. They simply don't stand up. What you would need to do is give me a reason for accepting them.


I thought that's what I was doing. If I can show you that the radio metric dating methods, potassium argon dating and other dating methods are flawed will you consider it?

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1524933 wrote: I thought that's what I was doing. If I can show you that the radio metric dating methods, potassium argon dating and other dating methods are flawed will you consider it?


I will go look it up.

I've seen your sources.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1524934 wrote: I will go look it up.

I've seen your sources.


Ok be sure to look up the rocks from Mt. St. Helens, which erupted in the 1980s that were dated with the highest technology of the time in 1996. The scientists weren't told where the rocks came from and the dates that came back were between 500,000 and 2.8 Million years old! Another rock known to be around 50 years old was dated and the scientists didn't know where the rock came from. It came back at 3.5 Million years old. Another rock from 1801 was dated to 1.8 BILLION years old.

Also, carbon 14 dating, according to evolutionists is no longer measurable past 100,000 years because they say that all of the c-14 would be gone by then and YET every dinosaur bone ever dated by carbon 14 dating came back with measurable c-14 in them. How could that be if they went extinct 65 million years ago as they claim?

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ok be sure to look up the rocks from Mt. St. Helens, which erupted in the 1980s that were dated with the highest technology of the time in 1996. The scientists weren't told where the rocks came from and the dates that came back were between 500,000 and 2.8 Million years old! Another rock known to be around 50 years old was dated and the scientists didn't know where the rock came from. It came back at 3.5 Million years old. Another rock from 1801 was dated to 1.8 BILLION years old.

Also, carbon 14 dating, according to evolutionists is no longer measurable past 100,000 years because they say that all of the c-14 would be gone by then and YET every dinosaur bone ever dated by carbon 14 dating came back with measurable c-14 in them. How could that be if they went extinct 65 million years ago as they claim?

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1525038 wrote: Ok be sure to look up the rocks from Mt. St. Helens, which erupted in the 1980s that were dated with the highest technology of the time in 1996. The scientists weren't told where the rocks came from and the dates that came back were between 500,000 and 2.8 Million years old! Another rock known to be around 50 years old was dated and the scientists didn't know where the rock came from. It came back at 3.5 Million years old. Another rock from 1801 was dated to 1.8 BILLION years old.

Also, carbon 14 dating, according to evolutionists is no longer measurable past 100,000 years because they say that all of the c-14 would be gone by then and YET every dinosaur bone ever dated by carbon 14 dating came back with measurable c-14 in them. How could that be if they went extinct 65 million years ago as they claim?


You're repeating yourself.

That does not make what your saying any more true.

Let me just say that it seems logical that a mountain that has been built up over time through many volcanic episodes, might, when it blows up, scatter rocks that exhibit multiple "ages"

Think about that.

By the way. We now have evidence that there were Humans on the North American continent for over twice as long as creationists claim the Earth has existed.

Care to explain that?

[Ted]

still the same old rubbish passed on as science. What bloody nonsense

It would appear that so many people still have a reading problem.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1525042 wrote: You're repeating yourself.

That does not make what your saying any more true.

Let me just say that it seems logical that a mountain that has been built up over time through many volcanic episodes, might, when it blows up, scatter rocks that exhibit multiple "ages"

Think about that.

By the way. We now have evidence that there were Humans on the North American continent for over twice as long as creationists claim the Earth has existed.

Care to explain that?


What you said isn't true, because the rocks were taken from Mt. St. Helens and they were fresh lava that hardened 10 or so years previous.

I am not familiar with the new evidence. Could you provide me with a link?

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ted;1525065 wrote: still the same old rubbish passed on as science. What bloody nonsense

It would appear that so many people still have a reading problem.


Like what?

[xfrodobagginsx]

'Evolution in action' actually supports creation



https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/evolution-a ... -creation/

[Mickiel]

Pahu;1346204 wrote:

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution



Evolution flunks the science test



Irreducible complexity—— Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity—— Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible—— Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.



SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28




I believe in evolution myself , just limited types of it, such as what occurs with the Butterfly. I think human consciousness is actually evolving , it is not staying the same. I think human beliefs are evolving and I think human senses are evolving. I think the human body is evolving in certain minimal ways. I think certain aspects of the animal kingdom are evolving , although some would just term it adapting.

[Ted]

Mickiel I'm in agreement.

[Ted]

xfrod the constant denial of the well demonstrated facts the continue to fight the reality of the facts of evolution. That is from the wanna bees. These people simply do not trust in God.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Mickiel;1525106 wrote: I believe in evolution myself , just limited types of it, such as what occurs with the Butterfly. I think human consciousness is actually evolving , it is not staying the same. I think human beliefs are evolving and I think human senses are evolving. I think the human body is evolving in certain minimal ways. I think certain aspects of the animal kingdom are evolving , although some would just term it adapting.


I believe everything you said, except I don't believe that human consciousness is evolving. That sounds like new age. Yes, humans and animal evolve, but in minimal ways, they don't evolve into other animal kinds. Obviously, the different races of men are examples of lateral adaptation or micro evolution. We don't see any half man half ape. Any so call examples are actually either apes or humans and they try to claim that they are half breeds. If you look at the actual bones, it's nothing of the sort. You can't take a toe bone and a few rib bones and claim that it's some kind of half breed between human and ape. That is blatantly dishonest, but that's the type of thing that evolutionists do very often.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ted;1525117 wrote: xfrod the constant denial of the well demonstrated facts the continue to fight the reality of the facts of evolution. That is from the wanna bees. These people simply do not trust in God.


Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a faith based theory. Ever heard of the missing link? It's still missing. I trust in the God of the Bible, not a false god.

[FourPart]

xfrodobagginsx;1525206 wrote: Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a faith based theory. Ever heard of the missing link? It's still missing. I trust in the God of the Bible, not a false god.


EVERY living thing is a Missing Link. It is the link between its ancestor & its descendants. When you get a smooth gradient from White to Black you get all different levels of Grey, but at what point does it suddenly change from one to the other. The same goes for colours. There is no such thing as the hard line of a rainbow. The changes are gradual over millions of years.

As for dating methods, Science doesn't just use one single dating method. They use many other totally different methods, all of which corroborate each other. As for your argument about "5 year old rocks", are you saying those rocks came from nothing? Or did they come from molten rocks that were millions of years old? Dating methods are based on the molecular level. When a sculptor makes a statue, the statue is new, but it doesn't make the marble it is carved from any younger.

[xfrodobagginsx]

FourPart;1525240 wrote: EVERY living thing is a Missing Link. It is the link between its ancestor & its descendants. When you get a smooth gradient from White to Black you get all different levels of Grey, but at what point does it suddenly change from one to the other. The same goes for colours. There is no such thing as the hard line of a rainbow. The changes are gradual over millions of years.

As for dating methods, Science doesn't just use one single dating method. They use many other totally different methods, all of which corroborate each other. As for your argument about "5 year old rocks", are you saying those rocks came from nothing? Or did they come from molten rocks that were millions of years old? Dating methods are based on the molecular level. When a sculptor makes a statue, the statue is new, but it doesn't make the marble it is carved from any younger.


Wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Evolutionists themselves will say that many species haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. Therefore, there should be some sort of evidence that there was an intermediate species, but there isn't. So your rainbow analogy doesn't fly.

The dating methods don't work either, it's been demonstrated time and time again. That's why they date rocks known to be a few years old to be 500,000 to 2.5 million years old , rocks known to be 50 years old to be 3.5 million of years old and rocks known to be 100 years old to be 1.5 billion years old.

When I talk about 10 year old rock, not 5 year old rock, I am talking about newly formed rock that came from a volcano erupting such as Mt. St. Helens in the 1980s. Those rocks were dated to be millions of years old by the evolutionists themselves using whatever dating methods they wanted.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Can someone explain how Abiogenesis is feasibly even possible?

[Ted]

More ignorance from fundamentalism.

[Ted]

All religions are culturally based and thus are valid for the religions they are created by

[FourPart]

xfrodobagginsx;1525249 wrote: Wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Evolutionists themselves will say that many species haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years. Therefore, there should be some sort of evidence that there was an intermediate species, but there isn't. So your rainbow analogy doesn't fly.

The dating methods don't work either, it's been demonstrated time and time again. That's why they date rocks known to be a few years old to be 500,000 to 2.5 million years old , rocks known to be 50 years old to be 3.5 million of years old and rocks known to be 100 years old to be 1.5 billion years old.

When I talk about 10 year old rock, not 5 year old rock, I am talking about newly formed rock that came from a volcano erupting such as Mt. St. Helens in the 1980s. Those rocks were dated to be millions of years old by the evolutionists themselves using whatever dating methods they wanted.


I can't believe you're actually using the oldest argument against Evolution going. The ultimate demonstration of ignorance of how Evolution works - that there are still species around that haven't changed. When Creationists can't define a 'kind' they usually come back to some fallacious claim about dogs giving birth to cats (when, in actual fact, cats were around first). They come up with the argument saying that if Apes are our ancestors then why are there still Apes, yet they still accept that all dogs are descended from wolves. Well the simple answer to that is to ask why there are still wolves?

Evolution is not a linear A is replaced by B, which is replaced by C, etc. The line of A can continue on & on to modern day, but slight changes lead to a sub set of B, which can continue to the line of B. The A line can also evolve into another subset of C, D & E, etc, and all the other lines can also branch off into their own subsets. Each initial branching the difference between A & B would be virtually indistinguishable, but over time & multiple generations & continuously varying branches eventually you get to the point where branch Z to the power of 'n' is totally unrecogniseable from its ancestor, A - or any of its other cousins.

Every single living being on earth (or any other planet, for that matter) is a transitional species. The only exception being total clones. The fact that there are changes through generations proves the existence of Evolution.

[FourPart]

https//youtu.be/_r0zpk0lPFU

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ted;1525345 wrote: More ignorance from fundamentalism.


See you can't explain it so you just resort to name calling. That doesn't really explain it now does it?

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ted;1525346 wrote: All religions are culturally based and thus are valid for the religions they are created by


Christianity is not culturally based. It's God based.

[xfrodobagginsx]

xfrodobagginsx;1525380 wrote: Christianity is not culturally based. It's God based.


With that said, Judaism is cultural, but still God based.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Know God, Know Peace-No God, No Peace.