Pages:
Author

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 58. (Read 108173 times)

hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 13, 2018, 12:45:47 PM

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples



There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist?

https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

Anyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly.

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#69eeb2452d8d


I guess you have to accept evolution now.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
July 13, 2018, 11:01:47 AM

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples



There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist?

https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

Anyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly.

Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from?

Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil.

Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation?

The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure.

I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction.

So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 13, 2018, 10:36:49 AM

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples



There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist?

https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

Anyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
July 13, 2018, 12:52:36 AM

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples



There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

Well, come on you evolutionists out there. What is wrong with the info in that Wikipedia link, above? Check in the same page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Fossil_record . What's it saying in this second link? It's saying that the fossil record is so incomplete that it doesn't have a record of evolution in it. Yet, the animals shown in earlier portions of the page say that there are missing links. Since the fossil record is incomplete, how does anybody know that any of the fossils are missing links?

It's all make believe. There aren't any missing links because evolution doesn't exist.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
July 12, 2018, 07:01:04 PM

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples



There you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter.

If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to.

You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 12, 2018, 06:17:39 PM

Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown.

Actually, it is you and other evolutionists who show your knowledge on the subject of evolution. You do it by talking around anything that doesn't match your evolution ideals. This proves that evolution is a religion, and that you knwo it, even though you won't readily admit such to yourselves.

Evolution, being a religion for you, when you try to sincerely present it as fact, makes evolution to be a hoax, a hoax against humanity who doesn't suspect the entire lack of fact regarding everything that is evolution.

You state things like Creature A evolved into Creature C, and we have found the missing link, Missing Link B. So, Creature A evolved to Creature B which evolved to Creature C.

Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.

What if all those missing links are there in the fossil record somewhere? Maybe they are, right? But where? Since they are not visible anywhere, we don't know for sure that they exist. Since we don't know that they exist, we don't know that evolution theory can even be fact. The fact that science is touting something as fact that they don't know is fact, makes evolution scientists to be incredibly uncredible, and...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

P.S.   This is fun Cheesy   I have almost never found such a detailed, scientific topic, that is so easy to rebut, as evolution.

''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.''

I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples

legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
July 12, 2018, 12:19:40 PM

Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown.

Actually, it is you and other evolutionists who show your knowledge on the subject of evolution. You do it by talking around anything that doesn't match your evolution ideals. This proves that evolution is a religion, and that you knwo it, even though you won't readily admit such to yourselves.

Evolution, being a religion for you, when you try to sincerely present it as fact, makes evolution to be a hoax, a hoax against humanity who doesn't suspect the entire lack of fact regarding everything that is evolution.

You state things like Creature A evolved into Creature C, and we have found the missing link, Missing Link B. So, Creature A evolved to Creature B which evolved to Creature C.

Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.

What if all those missing links are there in the fossil record somewhere? Maybe they are, right? But where? Since they are not visible anywhere, we don't know for sure that they exist. Since we don't know that they exist, we don't know that evolution theory can even be fact. The fact that science is touting something as fact that they don't know is fact, makes evolution scientists to be incredibly uncredible, and...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

P.S.   This is fun Cheesy   I have almost never found such a detailed, scientific topic, that is so easy to rebut, as evolution.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 12, 2018, 11:34:17 AM

But how would you know? All you can do is post links. Since you can't explain them in a concise form yourself, how would you even know that they say anything truthful?

At least the other religions have doctrine that people can understand and explain. Or is it just you who can't explain things?

Evolution is a hoax, even as a religion.

Cool

Nice talk but there is no such thing as ''missing links'' It's a classic myth just like ''why are there still monkeys'' You constantly show your lack of education in this matter, as previously shown.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
July 12, 2018, 11:21:44 AM

But how would you know? All you can do is post links. Since you can't explain them in a concise form yourself, how would you even know that they say anything truthful?

At least the other religions have doctrine that people can understand and explain. Or is it just you who can't explain things?

Evolution is a hoax, even as a religion.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 12, 2018, 04:16:58 AM
Yes. Start using your head.

1. Evolution theory evolution is impossible. Google "impossible evolution." The rebuttals to impossible evolution rebut themselves by being filled with assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities.

2. In a previous post I showed an article where mitochondrial DNA for life could not have existed beyond 200,000 years ago, scientifically speaking. The point is that science agrees that it is self-contradictory regarding when the first life appeared. Time to throw the baby out with the bath water.

3. All the supposed missing links in the fossil record, cannot be proven to have been missing links. Why not? Because the jump between any of them would have to be so great that the number of mutations from the before, to the ML, is unequivocally impossible in any form of evolution theory imaginable.

4. All supposed evolution forms that have been found, fit adaptation far easier than they fit evolution theory evolution.

5. In a previous post I showed that some of the smartest evolutionists agree that evolution barely has a leg to stand on, Stephen Gould being one of them.

6. No scientifically provable example of evolution has ever been found.

In other words, evolution as reality is impossible. If thinking evolutionists said that evolution was simply an idea, things would be different. But because they tout evolution as reality when nobody knows that it is...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

1) Of course you find what you want if you google your predefined opinion. That’s actually circular logic. You should google evolution and then arrive at your opinion. You like the bible, right? Try google it and words like assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities? - Assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities exist in the attempted rebuttals against the impossibility of evolution. Evolution itself doesn't have even these legs to stand on.

2) So? Google again and find 200.000 articles that will show mtDNA have existed beyond 200.000 years. If you talk about mtDNA-Eve well 200.000 years sounds about right. - You checked all the links? In this short time? What you will find if you check the links, is a variety of time frames. And that is the point... not talk of 200,000 years. The variable time frames show that science doesn't know what it is talking about regarding evolution.

3) Of course it cannot be proven, its missing! The rest is just your opinion. - Actually, what is proven by the absence of 100% of the required missing links, is that they don't exist... just like evolution doesn't exist.

4) Yes it does! Because adaptation is evolution! Any change is evolution! - Tying your shoes is change. It is change that doesn't fit evolution theory evolution. So, change is not evolution, just like tying your shoes is change, but not evolution.

5) Hmm… now how smart are they really if they don’t believe in their own title? Are they evolutionist if they don’t believe in evolution? Very strange! I’m one of the smartest Creationists Smiley - You talk about them believing in evolution or not. You talk the same way that people of the religions of the world talk about their religions. People believe their religions, and they don't believe other religions. So, you are helping to show us just what evolution is... a religion.

6) Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples. - Blah, blah, blah. Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples of like-begets-like, without any examples of evolution. Where is the evolution? In the imaginations of a bunch of people who want to believe it. Or do you have scientific proof of even one instance of evolution?!

In other words, evolution as reality is possible! - Actually, the odds against evolution as stated in evolution theory is so great, that according to probability science, evolution is impossible.

Evolution is reality

Cool


In other words, you are helping us to see that evolution is a hoax, simply by trying to show us that it is real, but failing at it so miserably.

Cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link_(human_evolution)
https://theconversation.com/myth-of-the-missing-link-in-evolution-does-science-no-favors-46661
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/discovery-destroys-myth-of-missing-link-on-the-evolutionary-ladder-5360940.html
https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/
https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-missing-link-myth
https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolution

I wish badecker was able to use google so he wouldn't use the worst possible arguments against evolution.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
July 11, 2018, 03:12:41 PM
Yes. Start using your head.

1. Evolution theory evolution is impossible. Google "impossible evolution." The rebuttals to impossible evolution rebut themselves by being filled with assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities.

2. In a previous post I showed an article where mitochondrial DNA for life could not have existed beyond 200,000 years ago, scientifically speaking. The point is that science agrees that it is self-contradictory regarding when the first life appeared. Time to throw the baby out with the bath water.

3. All the supposed missing links in the fossil record, cannot be proven to have been missing links. Why not? Because the jump between any of them would have to be so great that the number of mutations from the before, to the ML, is unequivocally impossible in any form of evolution theory imaginable.

4. All supposed evolution forms that have been found, fit adaptation far easier than they fit evolution theory evolution.

5. In a previous post I showed that some of the smartest evolutionists agree that evolution barely has a leg to stand on, Stephen Gould being one of them.

6. No scientifically provable example of evolution has ever been found.

In other words, evolution as reality is impossible. If thinking evolutionists said that evolution was simply an idea, things would be different. But because they tout evolution as reality when nobody knows that it is...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

1) Of course you find what you want if you google your predefined opinion. That’s actually circular logic. You should google evolution and then arrive at your opinion. You like the bible, right? Try google it and words like assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities? - Assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities exist in the attempted rebuttals against the impossibility of evolution. Evolution itself doesn't have even these legs to stand on.

2) So? Google again and find 200.000 articles that will show mtDNA have existed beyond 200.000 years. If you talk about mtDNA-Eve well 200.000 years sounds about right. - You checked all the links? In this short time? What you will find if you check the links, is a variety of time frames. And that is the point... not talk of 200,000 years. The variable time frames show that science doesn't know what it is talking about regarding evolution.

3) Of course it cannot be proven, its missing! The rest is just your opinion. - Actually, what is proven by the absence of 100% of the required missing links, is that they don't exist... just like evolution doesn't exist.

4) Yes it does! Because adaptation is evolution! Any change is evolution! - Tying your shoes is change. It is change that doesn't fit evolution theory evolution. So, change is not evolution, just like tying your shoes is change, but not evolution.

5) Hmm… now how smart are they really if they don’t believe in their own title? Are they evolutionist if they don’t believe in evolution? Very strange! I’m one of the smartest Creationists Smiley - You talk about them believing in evolution or not. You talk the same way that people of the religions of the world talk about their religions. People believe their religions, and they don't believe other religions. So, you are helping to show us just what evolution is... a religion.

6) Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples. - Blah, blah, blah. Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples of like-begets-like, without any examples of evolution. Where is the evolution? In the imaginations of a bunch of people who want to believe it. Or do you have scientific proof of even one instance of evolution?!

In other words, evolution as reality is possible! - Actually, the odds against evolution as stated in evolution theory is so great, that according to probability science, evolution is impossible.

Evolution is reality

Cool


In other words, you are helping us to see that evolution is a hoax, simply by trying to show us that it is real, but failing at it so miserably.

Cool
full member
Activity: 301
Merit: 103
July 11, 2018, 10:29:36 AM
Yes. Start using your head.

1. Evolution theory evolution is impossible. Google "impossible evolution." The rebuttals to impossible evolution rebut themselves by being filled with assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities.

2. In a previous post I showed an article where mitochondrial DNA for life could not have existed beyond 200,000 years ago, scientifically speaking. The point is that science agrees that it is self-contradictory regarding when the first life appeared. Time to throw the baby out with the bath water.

3. All the supposed missing links in the fossil record, cannot be proven to have been missing links. Why not? Because the jump between any of them would have to be so great that the number of mutations from the before, to the ML, is unequivocally impossible in any form of evolution theory imaginable.

4. All supposed evolution forms that have been found, fit adaptation far easier than they fit evolution theory evolution.

5. In a previous post I showed that some of the smartest evolutionists agree that evolution barely has a leg to stand on, Stephen Gould being one of them.

6. No scientifically provable example of evolution has ever been found.

In other words, evolution as reality is impossible. If thinking evolutionists said that evolution was simply an idea, things would be different. But because they tout evolution as reality when nobody knows that it is...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

1) Of course you find what you want if you google your predefined opinion. That’s actually circular logic. You should google evolution and then arrive at your opinion. You like the bible, right? Try google it and words like assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities?

2) So? Google again and find 200.000 articles that will show mtDNA have existed beyond 200.000 years. If you talk about mtDNA-Eve well 200.000 years sounds about right.

3) Of course it cannot be proven, its missing! The rest is just your opinion.

4) Yes it does! Because adaptation is evolution! Any change is evolution!

5) Hmm… now how smart are they really if they don’t believe in their own title? Are they evolutionist if they don’t believe in evolution? Very strange! I’m one of the smartest Creationists Smiley

6) Open your eyes. It’s all around you, trillions and trillions of examples.

In other words, evolution as reality is possible!

Evolution is reality

Cool
full member
Activity: 301
Merit: 103
July 11, 2018, 10:24:06 AM
I know, I know. You want me to do the research for you. Then you won't accept it anyway.

First, check the Bible to see that folks lived over 900 years in some cases, before the Great Flood, and 400 or more, in some cases, in the first 500 years after. Second, consider that the earth was much more fertile in those days, because devolution didn't have as much time to set in as later years. Next, get out your Excel spreadsheet, and set a woman's average lifespan to 400 years (could have been 600 to 800).

At 20-y-o a woman starts having kids. She has one every year for 400 years, both because sex is fun, and because everything is healthier (less devolution). Now, considering that half the kids were male, and half were female, the approximately 1,600 years before the flood would produce billions on the earth. Do the math, or at least look it up in a search engine.

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/pre-flood-population/
http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html
https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/4-population-growth-how-many-died-in-noahs-flood/ = trillions
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/32623/what-was-the-population-of-the-world-at-the-time-of-the-flood

Cool

Narr not really. Capable enough to find my own answers.

It’s all assumptions! If and if and if, all the lovely things you complain about in evolution!

Not dealing with all the issues of incest and inbreeding, after all you only have one male and female to begin with, and never mind turning women into nonstop breading machines – for 100s of years at a time, you also surpassed growth percent of a factor 100 vs. any other time in history.

And how about the food for this massive population explosion? All other animals and plants have also just been created, they need time too, to super populate like the humans.

And while this is just in the beginning – few humans and few animals, humans start to build super structures of massive sizes all over the world.  Impressive! Never mind I disregard the Neolithic structures predating 4000 B.C, cause I don’t know how they were build, since no humans where around?
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 11, 2018, 09:39:50 AM

You forget the major thing about the Bible. And that is, the Bible isn't a scientific text in the terms of modern science. Rather, it is a religious text that uses the terms of an ancient race of people who had different ways of thinking than even their modern counterpart.

For simple example. The way that the Ancient Israel people calculated days and months and weeks was different than the way that we calculate them. It is possible that some Middle East folks still calculate them as did Ancient Israel, even though their governments have adopted the form used in Europe and America. See https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/what-is-the-biblical-day-week-month-year-and-does-it-really-matter/ to see what the "calendar" of Bible times was really like.

The point is, the Bible isn't wrong. Rather, modern science is trying to use it as a measurement in the wrong way.

Cool

EDIT: The real point, again, is that the Bible is an accurate record, and can be used accurately by those who have studied how to use it. Even if evolution wasn't backward in the way it is being applied - the truth is that the longer the time, the greater the chance for deterioration and destruction of beneficial mutations (assuming that there are some) - the Bible is a witness to the things that really happened.

Evolution is a hoax.

''the Bible is an accurate record'' It is not accurate if it's wrong on almost everything, the history taught in the bible is nowhere to be found. Flood? Noah's Ark? Talking snakes? None of those things existed, accurate because you say so? ROFL

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

Slap yourself and wake up.

Since the Bible isn't wrong, it is an accurate record. The scientific methodology that shows what the Bible is, and how it couldn't exist in the form in which it exists, shows the miraculousness of the Bible, and that God made it. So, God and the bible are true, and science is guessing at multitudes of things that are outside of its scope to understand.

The flaws and lies in your link are enormous deceptions. There are as many holes in the points in the link, as there are missing missing-links in the fossil record = possibly millions, but more like billions or trillions.

Evolution is a pure and unadulterated hoax.

Cool

''
Since the Bible isn't wrong, it is an accurate record'' Literally all history shows that it isn't. No noah's ark anywhere, no indications of a massive flood, no talking snakes or other creatures like demons, no possessions. You keep saying it's accurate, it's accurate on what exactly?
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
July 10, 2018, 10:57:49 PM
@BADecker



Yes. Start using your head.

1. Evolution theory evolution is impossible. Google "impossible evolution." The rebuttals to impossible evolution rebut themselves by being filled with assumptions, circular references, and ambiguities.

2. In a previous post I showed an article where mitochondrial DNA for life could not have existed beyond 200,000 years ago, scientifically speaking. The point is that science agrees that it is self-contradictory regarding when the first life appeared. Time to throw the baby out with the bath water.

3. All the supposed missing links in the fossil record, cannot be proven to have been missing links. Why not? Because the jump between any of them would have to be so great that the number of mutations from the before, to the ML, is unequivocally impossible in any form of evolution theory imaginable.

4. All supposed evolution forms that have been found, fit adaptation far easier than they fit evolution theory evolution.

5. In a previous post I showed that some of the smartest evolutionists agree that evolution barely has a leg to stand on, Stephen Gould being one of them.

6. No scientifically provable example of evolution has ever been found.

In other words, evolution as reality is impossible. If thinking evolutionists said that evolution was simply an idea, things would be different. But because they tout evolution as reality when nobody knows that it is...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
July 10, 2018, 10:35:46 PM
The only clear place where we see 6,000 years is the Bible. Other literature or ideas are not clear on the 6,000-year point. And even the Bible was not meant to be a historical record that shows 6,000 years, even though it does.

How does the Bible show 6,000 years to, say, 6,200 years (not 10,000)? Indirectly. Here is the link that shows how the Bible does it - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.

This limited timeframe of 6000 years just brings up a lot of continuity questions. Everything has to fit inside 4000 B.C to now.

Who build all the ancient structures? I mean, people did, yes we can agree on that – but where did the people come from? You need labor and God only created two of them! Where did all the manpower come from to build these structures located all over the world within 500-1500 years of creation?

How did we go from two people to 150-300 million in just 4000 years? (to year 1). Do the math.


I know, I know. You want me to do the research for you. Then you won't accept it anyway.

First, check the Bible to see that folks lived over 900 years in some cases, before the Great Flood, and 400 or more, in some cases, in the first 500 years after. Second, consider that the earth was much more fertile in those days, because devolution didn't have as much time to set in as later years. Next, get out your Excel spreadsheet, and set a woman's average lifespan to 400 years (could have been 600 to 800).

At 20-y-o a woman starts having kids. She has one every year for 400 years, both because sex is fun, and because everything is healthier (less devolution). Now, considering that half the kids were male, and half were female, the approximately 1,600 years before the flood would produce billions on the earth. Do the math, or at least look it up in a search engine.

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/pre-flood-population/
http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html
https://biblescienceguy.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/4-population-growth-how-many-died-in-noahs-flood/ = trillions
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/32623/what-was-the-population-of-the-world-at-the-time-of-the-flood

Cool
full member
Activity: 301
Merit: 103
July 10, 2018, 06:02:39 PM
The only clear place where we see 6,000 years is the Bible. Other literature or ideas are not clear on the 6,000-year point. And even the Bible was not meant to be a historical record that shows 6,000 years, even though it does.

How does the Bible show 6,000 years to, say, 6,200 years (not 10,000)? Indirectly. Here is the link that shows how the Bible does it - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.

This limited timeframe of 6000 years just brings up a lot of continuity questions. Everything has to fit inside 4000 B.C to now.

Who build all the ancient structures? I mean, people did, yes we can agree on that – but where did the people come from? You need labor and God only created two of them! Where did all the manpower come from to build these structures located all over the world within 500-1500 years of creation?

How did we go from two people to 150-300 million in just 4000 years? (to year 1). Do the math.
newbie
Activity: 68
Merit: 0
July 10, 2018, 05:28:14 PM
Dad did not change.
My father has not changed.
I did not change.
legendary
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004
July 10, 2018, 04:31:57 PM
Absolutely, I completely agree with you. I mean how can you even differentiate between a man and a monkey if you are in the evolutionary state. You see in human beings are just a bit smarter than monkeys but we are not super smart beings. Whenever you purify the water you cannot be verified up to 100% there will be some impurities to be present in it. Just like that when a huge amount of aggressive evolved there are left or better we say for another experiment which nature does on them. Evolution happens when an organism causes difficulty and his DNA to adjust in that situation so it is possible that those species do not go through the same difficulties which we humans do.
newbie
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
July 10, 2018, 03:58:18 PM
Pages:
Jump to: