Fist of Eden
Most of the populus has already been deceived by this pulled-out-of-the-a** idea that we could have somehow came from something like a fish or even farther back, a bacteria.
There are some major issues with this.
The first flaw is most scientists
dating systems. Now, when we think about dinosaurs we think about a few million years ago, maybe even further back. But there's SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that proves dinosaurs haven't been extinct for even half of that long. If you do your research(a few minutes of it at that) you ill see that they discovered a dinosaur bone with tissue in it containing Carbon 14.
Actually, they didn't. I think I know which claim you're
trying to make though. The soft-tissue structures were preserved by iron; there was no C-14.
Quote:
All you scientists out there know that Carbon 14's SCIENTIFIC LAW says that the longest it can be preserved without decaying is 200,000 years.
Any scientists who "know" what you just said are morons who know juffo-wup all about chemistry. No, seriously. C-14 is radioactive; it is ALWAYS decaying - and with a known half-life of 5730 years, it imposes a rough limit on the available time-table of about
50ky, not 200ky.
But C-14 isn't the only radioactive element used in dating; there are others, with much longer half-lives, which are also used. There is also a line - drawn at 70 million years - between isotopes: isotopes with longer half-lives than this occur naturally on earth; shorter, and they don't unless they have a known source to regenerate them (either as daughter products of other isotopes, or another known mechanism as with C-14.)
Quote:
Why do i mention dating systems?
The reason i mention the issues with dating is because evolution is supposed to take millions upon millions of years to go from bacteria to man. But scientists who believe in evolution will tell us man and dinosaurs did NOT exist at the same time. This causes some obvious inconsistencies.
Not counting Class Aves (birds are a modern branch of a theropod dinosaur clade,) which dinosaurs do you think actually did live with man? And, without referring to
debunked evidence such as the Paluxy tracks and the Ica stones, can you supply evidence?
Quote:
Natural Selection is real, but Evolution is not?
This might confuse some people. But what I am saying here is that small scale evolution, natural selection, is which different traits are passed on to promote survival is real. However, the idea that something could, let's say, grow legs if its species usually doesn't have them-- this is utterly false. There is no scientific evidence to suggest it is possible and there is literally NO record of it in history.
Something could grow stubby appendages to push itself a little faster; the grandchildren of that something could have slightly longer appendages. A genetic anomaly in the grandchildren of those could provide some other adaptation that adds a weird feature to the appendage - a feature that proves useful. Given enough time, the appendages may well resemble what we call legs.
We see records supporting such things throughout prehistory.
A mutation could cause a bacterium to be capable of using the toxic waste of a Nylon factory as nutrients. Perhaps not efficiently, but that it can do it
at all means it gets a niche all to itself, in which it can thrive. We see this one after 1937, because Nylon didn't exist before then.
Quote:
And lastly,
Evolution does not follow the laws of science
I say this because of how long scientists say evolution takes. Longer than a multitude of human lifetimes. The definition of Science is as follows:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Some of you might already see the issue. The problem is, you CANNOT
observe nor can you
experiment with evolution.
We can, in fact, OBSERVE AND EXPERIMENT with evolution, even by your definition of science which demands that only direct observation and experiment can count. We simply use species (such as fruit flies) which advance generations much more quickly than we do.
Quote:
However, the Bible proves itself. It's a 2,000 year old collection of books that predicted the future of man kind that we see in this day and age.
Actually,
it doesn't even predict contemporary events. But that has nothing to do with evolution. It also has very... INTERESTING things to say about
population genetics.
100
200
100
