Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Asked and answered, but one more time - Vegetation and fruit trees on land before marine life? Yes. Why not? Then they seed and spread.
Click to expand...
And yet the fossil record shows marine life millions of years older than fruit-trees. How do you reconcile that, if they were in fact created only two days apart?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
And a animal would need this to overcome a environmental obstacle…correct ?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. In the long term, yes, but most of the time, if it could dive a little deeper, keep fed a littler better or keep a little cooler, it just has a few more babies than its fellows without the modification. If the environment continues to change, then eventually the last of the ones without the modification fail to breed.
Click to expand...
Evolution would have to be one step ahead of the environment obstacle for this to even be remotely plausible.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
And yet the fossil record shows marine life millions of years older than fruit-trees. How do you reconcile that, if they were in fact created only two days apart?
Click to expand...
The reasoning of the fossil record is wrong. And we have seen it changed quite a few times already. (man made reasoning)

Fruit (seed bearing organisms) were first. (Revelation)

You pledge yourself to man’s limited reasoning, I pledge myself to Revelation.
 
Last edited:
Buffalo weighs a 350 pound weight on rossum’s patent 50 lb max scales and gets a result of… 50 pounds.

All you are showing here is the limit of your measuring tool, not the actual age. All of those ages should be “30,000 ybp or more.”

You will also note that every one of those results you are touting completely destroys the 6,000 year interpretation of Genesis. Are you now going to withdraw your insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

rossum
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones
… [column of badly presented data] …
Click to expand...
Good of you to provide a reference for this. Oh, no, you didn’t. I wonder why not? Did you think any of us would be so baffled by your statistics that we would all just agree that creationism must be right, or do you honestly think these data demonstrate something?

I have things to say, but before I do, do you think the data in your table is accurate?
 
Techno2000 said:
But, it takes millions of years for random mutations to build the adaptations .
Click to expand...
No. A tiny change takes no time at all. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for a whole succession of tiny changes gradually to produce a group of animals which are reproductively incompatible - a new species.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
But, it takes millions of years for random mutations to build the adaptations .
Click to expand...
No. A tiny change takes no time at all. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for a whole succession of tiny changes gradually to produce a group of animals which are reproductively incompatible - a new species.
Click to expand...
That means there should be even more transitional fossils out there.
 
rossum said:
Buffalo weighs a 350 pound weight on rossum’s patent 50 lb max scales and gets a result of… 50 pounds.

All you are showing here is the limit of your measuring tool, not the actual age. All of those ages should be “30,000 ybp or more.”

You will also note that every one of those results you are touting completely destroys the 6,000 year interpretation of Genesis. Are you now going to withdraw your insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis?

rossum
Click to expand...
Actually buffalo weighs a 28 lb weight on your scale and it reads?

Wait for it?

28lbs. Pretty amazing.

rossum puts a 28lb weight on his patented scale and it weighs 28lbs, but he just shirks it off because he “knows” the weight is 350lbs.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
No. A tiny change takes no time at all. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for a whole succession of tiny changes gradually to produce a group of animals which are reproductively incompatible - a new species.
Click to expand...
If they are so tiny how is that going overcome the environmental hurdle ?
 
Techno2000 said:
If they are so tiny how is that going overcome the environmental hurdle ?
Click to expand...
There is no hurdle; there is a tiny environmental difference. If there was a ‘hurdle’ so nasty that no reproduction was possible, the species would cease.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Good of you to provide a reference for this. Oh, no, you didn’t. I wonder why not? Did you think any of us would be so baffled by your statistics that we would all just agree that creationism must be right, or do you honestly think these data demonstrate something?

I have things to say, but before I do, do you think the data in your table is accurate?
Click to expand...
I almost always post links, but in this case I wanted you to seriously look at the data. As predicted, the first thing you want to try and ad hominem attack the source.

You did notice the C-14, not C-12?

Yes, so far I believe the data shows it cannot be 65million ya. It shows magnitudes less. But the rocks, the rocks are 65 million years old you stammer. The C-14 dating must be wrong. It has to be.

I see many claims made by you but very few links and source data to back it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top