|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2006 : 19:57:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Now there's a PotM if ever I saw one!
Aha!
Then how convenient that there is a thread over here for nominations for May...  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 01:00:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
So, let me get this straight, only humans evolved from fish?
Quite the opposite.quote:
What did monkeys evolve from? What transitional fish?
Same one that humans and the rest of the mammals evolved from.quote:
Big huge dinosaurs, how did they climb out of the primordial Soup, and create themselves from nothing to become huge complex creatures, without any origins, or design from an intelligent being, that was alive to supervise the events.
Who said they had no origins?quote:
Would you guys die to defend your believe in Evolution, with a sword to your throat?
Of course not, since evolution isn't a belief. If I were "denounce" evolution due to a death threat, it wouldn't change the fact of evolution whatsoever.
That's why your god is so pathetic, verlch: those 11 disciples thought that their god was so weak that if they doubted his existence, he would vanish. And they were right.
Scientists don't have such problems. Reality will go on being reality no matter who "believes" in it or no matter who denies it with a sword to their throat.
Hey, V-man: tell us again the one about how Christians have been put to death by scientists, or how no body's ever burned a copy of On the Origins of Species. Those stories of yours always gave me a good chuckle.
Again you have trillions of questions, with precious few answers.
Again, you believe a giant meteor wiped out the dinosaurs. Something had to have. I believe it was the flood, and the reason why the earth is 75% covered in water, something one would expect from a world wide flood.
You say the reason I find fossils in Pike's peak is because the world used to be covered in water, and how land pushed its way through, completely unaided by anything intelligent. That is why I find fossil of sea life above 10 thousand feet. I say it was brought there by the flood, and the bible backs me up.
You see, it is a difference of interpretation of the data that we disagree on, not concrete theories you have tested in the wild. Your observations are on theory only, and lauded as plausible.
Remember your own words, trillions upon trillions of transitional fossils changed to rapidly to get detected in the fossil record. Thus evolution is still fact to you, because you have explained away your problem. Doesn't mean your answer is fact, it just rests in your heads as sound reason.
You see fully formed living beings and tell me how you believe they became living breathing agents of free will. Observing none of your theories.
You gentlemen find a scant skeleton, and tell me how old it is, and it's place on the evolutionary ladder, yet you missed all of the internal organs, and how they have evolved, one without the other to form trillions upon trillions of life forms on one signal planet.
Too many coincidences gentlemen!
The invisible black matter, that science say must exist, or the invisible anti matter, much like the wind is invisible. It suggests the possibility of something science knows is there, but cannot see it. I'm sure God knows all about it. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 01:53:36 [Permalink]
|
Ok V. Then please explain why the fossil record is neatly indexed rather than all mixed up. Why have no ichthyosaur fossils been found in association with trilobites? Where is the Devonian Bunny; the Cambrian Croc? If the imagined Flood has caused the fossil record, all extinct species, and the extant ones as well, should be found in the same strata. This is not the case -- the fossil record is as the leaves in any book, showing a progression, chapter by chapter, like any work of literature. And don't try and hand me that tired, old 'hydraulic sorting' crap. That duck wouldn't dive even when it was first dreamed up.
It is pleasant, I'm sure, to have no questions. All you have to do then is to wander through your version of La-La Land and gaze wistfully at the sky from your head's position in your ass. Not a perfectly comfortable position perhaps, but the world remains at bay.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 03:16:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Ok V. Then please explain why the fossil record is neatly indexed rather than all mixed up. Why have no ichthyosaur fossils been found in association with trilobites? Where is the Devonian Bunny; the Cambrian Croc? If the imagined Flood has caused the fossil record, all extinct species, and the extant ones as well, should be found in the same strata. This is not the case -- the fossil record is as the leaves in any book, showing a progression, chapter by chapter, like any work of literature. And don't try and hand me that tired, old 'hydraulic sorting' crap. That duck wouldn't dive even when it was first dreamed up.
It is pleasant, I'm sure, to have no questions. All you have to do then is to wander through your version of La-La Land and gaze wistfully at the sky from your head's position in your ass. Not a perfectly comfortable position perhaps, but the world remains at bay.
I think the fossils are arranged by your interpertation of the data to conform to your atheistic world view. What could explain so many fossils in one place. How many billios of fossils are there again?
Once again, if the glove doesn't fit, you guys never seem to want to examine why.
Some fossils are in different areas. Like the tree fossil upright, going through millions of years of layers of strata. You guys neatly ignore the hell out of it.
Where did all the water come from? Comets? Recently we sent a probe to one, what was it's make up? It had to be water didn't' it?
I can't seem to find out what was in the comet stuff they brought back to earth. I have not read anything about it.
Was it water like they had suggested? Too make all the water on the world, and not a product of displacement by Noah's flood?
If there isn't any water in comets, or meteorite's, where or where could it have come from? All this water? If comets and meteorites can't bring the water fast enough, how would life ever evolve. AS I know humans are 95% water. Plants need water, not salt water, wouldn't land have to have been here first for evolution to occur? In order for plants and oxygen to evolve to support the sea creatures high on mountains, land plants would have to have evolved first. Yet that is impossible, for if the plants evolved first on dry land, than you wouldn't find sea life high on Pike's pike, and Mt. Everest.
It would take a tremendous amount of time for plants to evolve to produce oxygen living off of fresh water. More time that is allotted for your theory. Remember you still need to fit in the birth of the moon, purely accident, from a collision with the earth.
Yes, a series of maximus umpus accidents and colossal genetic mutations got us to our current state. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
| Edited by - verlch on 05/17/2006 03:19:22 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 04:05:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Ok V. Then please explain why the fossil record is neatly indexed rather than all mixed up. Why have no ichthyosaur fossils been found in association with trilobites? Where is the Devonian Bunny; the Cambrian Croc? If the imagined Flood has caused the fossil record, all extinct species, and the extant ones as well, should be found in the same strata. This is not the case -- the fossil record is as the leaves in any book, showing a progression, chapter by chapter, like any work of literature. And don't try and hand me that tired, old 'hydraulic sorting' crap. That duck wouldn't dive even when it was first dreamed up.
It is pleasant, I'm sure, to have no questions. All you have to do then is to wander through your version of La-La Land and gaze wistfully at the sky from your head's position in your ass. Not a perfectly comfortable position perhaps, but the world remains at bay.
I think the fossils are arranged by your interpertation of the data to conform to your atheistic world view. What could explain so many fossils in one place. How many billios of fossils are there again?
Once again, if the glove doesn't fit, you guys never seem to want to examine why.
Some fossils are in different areas. Like the tree fossil upright, going through millions of years of layers of strata. You guys neatly ignore the hell out of it.
Where did all the water come from? Comets? Recently we sent a probe to one, what was it's make up? It had to be water didn't' it?
I can't seem to find out what was in the comet stuff they brought back to earth. I have not read anything about it.
Was it water like they had suggested? Too make all the water on the world, and not a product of displacement by Noah's flood?
If there isn't any water in comets, or meteorite's, where or where could it have come from? All this water? If comets and meteorites can't bring the water fast enough, how would life ever evolve. AS I know humans are 95% water. Plants need water, not salt water, wouldn't land have to have been here first for evolution to occur? In order for plants and oxygen to evolve to support the sea creatures high on mountains, land plants would have to have evolved first. Yet that is impossible, for if the plants evolved first on dry land, than you wouldn't find sea life high on Pike's pike, and Mt. Everest.
It would take a tremendous amount of time for plants to evolve to produce oxygen living off of fresh water. More time that is allotted for your theory. Remember you still need to fit in the birth of the moon, purely accident, from a collision with the earth.
Yes, a series of maximus umpus accidents and colossal genetic mutations got us to our current state.
Who ignores polystrate fossils?
As I am not up to speed on astronomy, I can't answer the comet questions except to say that I haven't read anything about the samples, either. This doesn't mean that results haven't been published; merely that we haven't seen them yet. quote:
It would take a tremendous amount of time for plants to evolve to produce oxygen living off of fresh water. More time that is allotted for your theory. Remember you still need to fit in the birth of the moon, purely accident, from a collision with the earth.
Precisely! Do a google on cyanobacteria and stromatolites, and all will become clear. There are fossils of them some 500 million 3.5 billion years old; plenty of time for them to produce plenty of oxygen.
Edit:  Was in a hurry -- had to go to town, briefly -- and had the Cambrian on my mind. Oh well, if you don't fuck up once in a while, you ought to be fired for not working hard enough. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/17/2006 04:56:30 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 06:15:34 [Permalink]
|
From The Lancelet: AiG's response to Tiktaalik. quote:
So, Answers in Genesis (AiG), one of America's leading creationism ministries, has now issued a (preliminary) response to Tiktaalik.
It's sort of amusing and sad, all at the same time. This is no surprise, as the response is co-authored by Dr. David Menton, a captial clown. He and co-author Mark Looy have produced a terrible mess: all their basic facts are wrong, dead-wrong. There is the clear impression that they have not even looked at the original reports (a point further evidenced by the fact that they cite only one of the two back-to-back articles published in the same issue).
Most of the article discusses the report in the NY Times rather than the original reports in Nature. This has the clear implication that the authors are more interested in the public's perception of the matter and have no scientific interest in the actual fossil material itself. As if that needed to be said. It is another manifistation of that odd species of thought that is creationist solipsism.
Their opening shot is the fact that the discoverers, when interviewed, used tentative wording to describe their interpretations. This is a rather alien concept for creationists: the idea of proceeding cautiously towards conclusions, rather than brazenly starting with immutable revealed Truth.
Here's the pinnacle of dishonesty, though. Menton and Looy write: "[the use of tentative language implies that] the find is not as firm as evolutionists would lead you to believe". You only wish. I'm not sure how the use of tentative language could result in Daeschler and Shubin overblowing the implications of their discoveries. Creationists are no strangers to contradiction.
"Tell lies; that's a spankin'." 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 10:13:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe it was the flood, and the reason why the earth is 75% covered in water, something one would expect from a world wide flood.
The size of the oceans has nothing to do with a world wide flood.
quote:
You say the reason I find fossils in Pike's peak is because the world used to be covered in water
WRONG, science does not say that. Are you ever going to learn anything pertaining to what you rant about?
quote:
That is why I find fossil of sea life above 10 thousand feet. I say it was brought there by the flood, and the bible backs me up.
Yes, the bible backs you up, but the evidence does not.
quote:
Your observations are on theory only, and lauded as plausible.
You say 'only theory' because you (as usual) do not know what the term 'theory' means. You have no theory only conjecture.
quote:
Remember your own words, trillions upon trillions of transitional fossils changed to rapidly to get detected in the fossil record. Thus evolution is still fact to you, because you have explained away your problem.
I can't respond to this because I don't have the faintest idea what you are attempting to say.
quote:
You see fully formed living beings and tell me how you believe they became living breathing agents of free will.
Yes, by evolution.
quote:
You gentlemen find a scant skeleton, and tell me how old it is, and it's place on the evolutionary ladder, yet you missed all of the internal organs, and how they have evolved, one without the other to form trillions upon trillions of life forms on one signal planet.
Is there a point to this paragraph?
quote:
The invisible black matter, that science say must exist, or the invisible anti matter, much like the wind is invisible.
What is the freaking point of this sentence. How the hell did you tie this stuff together in your poor deluded uneducated mind????
Black matter (I believe you mean dark matter) may exist. The existence of dark matter has been hypothesised to acount for anomolies in the gravitation of galaxies and the expansion of the universe.
Anti-matter on the atomic scale is to small to be seen just like regular matter. The presence of anti-matter is detected everyday in particle accelerators.
The wind in measured everyday also.
You have learned absolutly nothing since your very first post. You my incestuous friend, are truly 'a lost ball in high weeds'.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 10:16:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
From The Lancelet: AiG's response to Tiktaalik. quote:
So, Answers in Genesis (AiG), one of America's leading creationism ministries, has now issued a (preliminary) response to Tiktaalik.
It's sort of amusing and sad, all at the same time. This is no surprise, as the response is co-authored by Dr. David Menton, a captial clown. He and co-author Mark Looy have produced a terrible mess: all their basic facts are wrong, dead-wrong. There is the clear impression that they have not even looked at the original reports (a point further evidenced by the fact that they cite only one of the two back-to-back articles published in the same issue).
Most of the article discusses the report in the NY Times rather than the original reports in Nature. This has the clear implication that the authors are more interested in the public's perception of the matter and have no scientific interest in the actual fossil material itself. As if that needed to be said. It is another manifistation of that odd species of thought that is creationist solipsism.
Their opening shot is the fact that the discoverers, when interviewed, used tentative wording to describe their interpretations. This is a rather alien concept for creationists: the idea of proceeding cautiously towards conclusions, rather than brazenly starting with immutable revealed Truth.
Here's the pinnacle of dishonesty, though. Menton and Looy write: "[the use of tentative language implies that] the find is not as firm as evolutionists would lead you to believe". You only wish. I'm not sure how the use of tentative language could result in Daeschler and Shubin overblowing the implications of their discoveries. Creationists are no strangers to contradiction.
"Tell lies; that's a spankin'."
"Precisely! Do a google on cyanobacteria and stromatolites, and all will become clear. There are fossils of them some 500 million 3.5 billion years old; plenty of time for them to produce plenty of oxygen."
At night plants "consume" oxygen. So, pray tell me what plants were consuming when they were "evolving" into plants that produce 65% more oxygen, than they use, at the current ratio.
I can't wait for more Phantom Physics.
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 10:20:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Where did all the water come from? Comets? Recently we sent a probe to one, what was it's make up? It had to be water didn't' it?
I can't seem to find out what was in the comet stuff they brought back to earth. I have not read anything about it.
Was it water like they had suggested? Too make all the water on the world, and not a product of displacement by Noah's flood?
If there isn't any water in comets, or meteorite's, where or where could it have come from? All this water?
Two words: Volcanic eruptions.
As I recall, that was always thought to be the major source of the earth's water.
From the USGS: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html :
"The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02)."
From the same report: The "enormous expansion of volcanic gases, primarily water, is the main driving force of explosive eruptions."
Imagine the early earth and you can see where much of the water come from. That comets may have contributed significant amounts of water is a more recent idea, if I recall correctly.
Edited to add something about the amounts, from the same source as above: "Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year." So water emissions would be something more. And thats at todays rates which are much reduced, I would imagine, from 4.5 billion years ago. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
| Edited by - leoofno on 05/17/2006 10:51:38 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 10:43:39 [Permalink]
|
Im so confused due to your total misunderstanding of nature.
Are you saying that cyanobacteria are plants? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 11:22:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Are you saying that cyanobacteria are plants?
I think he's saying that cyanobacteria were engineered by the worldwide Freemason/Illuminati conspiracy.
You just have to read between the lines. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2006 : 11:39:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
From The Lancelet: AiG's response to Tiktaalik. quote:
So, Answers in Genesis (AiG), one of America's leading creationism ministries, has now issued a (preliminary) response to Tiktaalik.
It's sort of amusing and sad, all at the same time. This is no surprise, as the response is co-authored by Dr. David Menton, a captial clown. He and co-author Mark Looy have produced a terrible mess: all their basic facts are wrong, dead-wrong. There is the clear impression that they have not even looked at the original reports (a point further evidenced by the fact that they cite only one of the two back-to-back articles published in the same issue).
Most of the article discusses the report in the NY Times rather than the original reports in Nature. This has the clear implication that the authors are more interested in the public's perception of the matter and have no scientific interest in the actual fossil material itself. As if that needed to be said. It is another manifistation of that odd species of thought that is creationist solipsism.
Their opening shot is the fact that the discoverers, when interviewed, used tentative wording to describe their interpretations. This is a rather alien concept for creationists: the idea of proceeding cautiously towards conclusions, rather than brazenly starting with immutable revealed Truth.
Here's the pinnacle of dishonesty, though. Menton and Looy write: "[the use of tentative language implies that] the find is not as firm as evolutionists would lead you to believe". You only wish. I'm not sure how the use of tentative language could result in Daeschler and Shubin overblowing the implications of their discoveries. Creationists are no strangers to contradiction.
"Precisely! Do a google on cyanobacteria and stromatolites, and all will become clear. There are fossils of them some 500 million 3.5 billion years old; plenty of time for them to produce plenty of oxygen."
At night plants "consume" oxygen. So, pray tell me what plants were consuming when they were "evolving" into plants that produce 65% more oxygen, than they use, at the current ratio.
I can't wait for more Phantom Physics.
What, do you want me/us to do all of your research? It ain't happenin'! I've got enough of my own to do. I think it was pretty, damn' generous to point you in the right direction in the first place, so:
LOOK IT UP!! 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/17/2006 11:43:53 |
|
|
|
Reztasohk
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2006 : 23:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
I can't wait for more Phantom Physics.
As opposed to a mystical man in the sky waving his hand and magically creating everything? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2006 : 03:55:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Reztasohk
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
I can't wait for more Phantom Physics.
As opposed to a mystical man in the sky waving his hand and magically creating everything?
Indeed.
Welcome to SFN, Reztasohk! I see you've already met our friend verlch....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
