Fovezer Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 Well if they didn't make them up, then the stories must have been true! Lol. Which is it? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Sorry to cause confusion, but, somewhere along the line, they had to be made up, and as a story is passed along, it gets changed and adapted, like the Russian song did. LOL. The population of the earth! Ah. Nice evidence. A one-liner is your evidence know? Very weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 I did read it. I read it many years ago. I have a feeling you did not read it. What is their explanation? That those trees had grown in the position they were found. And they provide long involved quotes from a guy from the 1800's. Well, surprise! Creationists don't dismiss that they grew there! In fact, that is not the problem at all! (That's the problem with those who frequent Talk Origins - they figure if Talk Origins has an answer then it must be a good one) Well, it's a poor answer. So the trees stood there for millions of years while having layers of sediment deposited quickly and drying slowly, but they didn't rot. Gimme a break. Better answer. The trees were quickly covered by sediment, which separated into layers then dried rather quickly before the tree had a chance to rot. What do you mean "grown in the position they were found"? Did you expect them to get up and move or something? You didn't read it. The article was saying that a creationist geologists disproved this. Do you know why a tree rots? It rots when it dies, and it is exposed to the elements. Trees can live long periods of time, and even though they are getting buried, they are still alive. They don't decompose because they are in sandstone and are well-preserved. the same reason why a mummy can still have flesh on them. No one said millions of years, either. More like thousands of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 Sorry I forgot to respond to this. I debated evolutionists for more than 2 years. They frequently found 'answers' here on this site. Talk Origins is the athiest's bible. I have posted ONE link to that site, and you say I only use that site. I have used a variety of sites, why you have only used two, AIG, notorious for having false informaton, and ICR, which also has shoddy evidence. And you even post a link to Dr. Dino!!!!!! Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 Well of course. They wouldn't call them anomolies would they. I'll try to find you a site that explains all these anomalies in detail if I get a chance today. That would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 So what keeps them from rotting then? I don't think people covered in avalanches fossilize at all. Wouldn't they just freeze? Mudslides? I don't know. I would think they'd just decay. They are not exposed to the elements, so they don't rot. This is very basic stuff, you should know this. Yeah you're right, they would freeze. They would decay, but extremely slowly, and they would be preserved like mummies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fovezer Posted December 13, 2003 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 305 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/science/12GENO.html More on the difference between humans and animals. This states evolution is true. Is that what you are implying? Yes, we evolved away from chimps because our enviroments are different. I don't know what you are getting at here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shadow2b Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 - Yes, we evolved away from chimps because our enviroments are different. I don't know what you are getting at here. -uhhhhh????woww--yuse guys sho-nuff are a gettin real scholarly inclinated....waaaayyy ovuh mah -heyyy-yedd...so isa will-not try ta get tuu fer inta this hyar con-ver-say-shun-ully Top-ick..... -BUT jes thunk i'd menn-shunn- thet I-dee-ahh we huUum-ans E-vol-ved frum monk-ees---"IF" -thet I-dee-ahh erre tru, wyyy doesnT we see them thaRr mon--keees awalkin outta the foress -in diff-runt stay-jees ova EV-ooo-luu-shunn???? A mos per-plex-yun quest-yunn Ain'T iT??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishcowboy Posted December 14, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,248 Content Per Day: 0.88 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/23/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2003 here is one for you.... what about the two bodies they found a while back and after examination, that these had to be Adam and Eve??? there was something about them that would prove that they was ADAM and EVE..... can any one figure out what would be the deciding factor here???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 14, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2003 You can't relate breeding dogs to natural variation. When you breed dogs, you put together thw two dogs of different subspecies and let them "go at it." When it happens naturally, it could take much, much longer to get all the variations we have today, not including breeding. All that has to happen is for two of the same species to breed and have a litter. How many times do you think that would have happened naturally? Think about it this way for a minute. If all the dogs on earth disappeared and all that was left was a wolf and a dashund, don't you think they'd mate? Chances are they'd have a litter. (But now since they're lines are too selected and information is now gone from the dna from not being used, the litter would be sterile) However, at the beginning you had two mutts, with much information for variation. Now, think of each species starting out with two 'mutts', with information for much variation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 14, 2003 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2003 re mtdna A recent report in Science's 'research new' suggest Eve may have lived around 6500 years ago. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp Uhhhhhhh, no. This was published in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Its right under the title. They used a quote from Science, but looking at it, it was obviously tailored to fit their needs. 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from Scientific America. I suggest you read it. What do you mean, uhhh no. Do you think that this information did not appear in Science Magazine and that AIG is lying? Will you not accept the information because its from a Creationist website (and you say you're open?) Of course, AIG is going to print this information. Do you think they'd ignore it? Do you think they should ignore it? You are not going to look at this because you know that the information totally falls in line with Creationist theory. Are you short-changing yourself by not checking this out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts