23 Feb 13
More from Conservapedia.... a renowned geneticist attempted for over 40 years to demonstrate scientifically that evolution theory is true, and walked away scratching his head... having failed miserably.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory. Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by sumydidYou are not making much sense, you contradict your own statements. Not sure where you are coming from. Anyone who thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old has rocks in his/her head. All you have to do is look at a place like the Grand Canyon and see the photo's take 100 years ago and we see they are almost the same as today and 100 years is only 1/60th of the way back to the supposed beginning 6000 years ago and it is obvious not much changed in 1/60th of the way back, we have solid photographic evidence of that. Anyone who thinks differently is not using the brains your god supposedly designed into you. You want to believe all the biblical poop go ahead but don't disrespect those who think the bible is full of shyte.
You have no idea how old the Earth is, other than what's been drilled into your head, which is ironic since you criticize others for supposedly believing what they believe for the very same reason.
But more importantly: Can you point us, once and for all, to the book, chapter, and verse in the bible that says the Earth is 6000 years old?
I'll be waiting for your adult, rational response. Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by sonhouseEvil-lutionists have misled you to believe that that Grand Canyon took millions or billions of years to form, but their are other alternatives that the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 proves. For more information on another possible explanation read the following two articles and view the videos of the eruption of Mount St. Helens and the final video that gives the creationists explanation for the Grand caynon.
You are not making much sense, you contradict your own statements. Not sure where you are coming from. Anyone who thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old has rocks in his/her head. All you have to do is look at a place like the Grand Canyon and see the photo's take 100 years ago and we see they are almost the same as today and 100 years is only 1/60th of th ...[text shortened]... ll the biblical poop go ahead but don't disrespect those who think the bible is full of shyte.
http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm
http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood
Mount St. Helens eruptions results in a minature Grand Canyon
The Grand Canyon: Evidence for the Flood
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's not the canyon that takes the time to create, it's laying down those layers of sediment. In the Grand Canyon the layers are exposed so we can see them but you could do the exposing in a couple of weeks with suitable explosives.
Evil-lutionists have misled you to believe that that Grand Canyon took millions or billions of years to form, but their are other alternatives that the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 proves. For more information on another possible explanation read the following two articles and view the videos of the eruption of Mount St. Helens and the final video t ...[text shortened]... jN5BHo
The Grand Canyon: Evidence for the Flood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM
It is the layers and the depositional environment in which they were laid down that tells of the time required. I know the young earth people would like to blame the flood for the layers but it doesn't work simply because you not only have different layers exposed but different rock types requiring differing depositional environments.
Yes, I know you will ignore this because it doesn't fit your script but I enjoy making you look idiotic.
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by sumydidIt should be pointed out that Heribert-Nilsson died in 1955, the quote you cited is from a book published in 1953. Archaic in terms of evolutionary theory.
More from Conservapedia.... a renowned geneticist attempted for over [b]40 years to demonstrate scientifically that evolution theory is true, and walked away scratching his head... having failed miserably.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or dup ...[text shortened]... should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."[/b]
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by sumydidYou want sonhouse to substantiate a belief he doesn't subscribe to?
You have no idea how old the Earth is, other than what's been drilled into your head, which is ironic since you criticize others for supposedly believing what they believe for the very same reason.
But more importantly: Can you point us, once and for all, to the book, chapter, and verse in the bible that says the Earth is 6000 years old?
I'll be waiting for your adult, rational response. Thanks in advance.
KellyJay and RJHinds believe the universe is a few thousand years old, maybe you should take the matter of how they scripturally support that belief up with them?
23 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobThat is the standard tactic of creationists. For instance, they can't let go of the piltdown man hoax, even after what, 100 years? To them, it is absolute proof of the deceptive behavior of ALL evolution scientists.
It should be pointed out that Heribert-Nilsson died in 1955, the quote you cited is from a book published in 1953. Archaic in terms of evolutionary theory.
Hiney just brought it up again, and again, and again. Also bringing up Neandertals as fakes. They just use science as a weapon, caring nothing for scientific truth, only the bits and pieces they can weaponize to further their insane ends, which is to push us back 1000 years in the past where in their fantasy they are in total control of people's lives, especially women. They lather up at the mouth in their effort to control women. They are like rabid dogs in that regard.
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by sumydidHang on... this book published in 1953? The same year that Watson & Crick released their paper on the discovery of DNA? For real? This 'renowned geneticist' you're championing wasn't even aware of the mechanism of inheritance?! Why would you even bother quoting something like this? It's like picking up a book written by a shepherd two thousand years ago and... oh. Right. You just carry on there slugger, you're doing REALLY well. Try "Genetics for Dummies" next.
More from Conservapedia.... a renowned geneticist attempted for over [b]40 years to demonstrate scientifically that evolution theory is true, and walked away scratching his head... having failed miserably.
"The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or dup ...[text shortened]... should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."[/b]
23 Feb 13
3 edits
Trying to argue against evolution, scientifically is very hard, pointless to my mind. But calling it Evil-lution is quite funny and accurate. It is an OK theory, not a law, the scientist don't call it a law. But it is a putrid idea when it becomes philosophy. Apartheid only ended quite recently thats what happens when you get genetic superiority into your head, and people are naturally very prone to that way of thinking.
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by e4chrisNot many theories get called laws nowadays. Newton started the law habit with his laws of motion and law of universal gravitation. He called them laws because he was an arrogant bastard and thought he had discovered the god given laws that control the universe. He only had theories though and one of them was a supplanted by a better description of gravity.
Trying to argue against evolution, scientifically is very hard, pointless to my mind. But calling it Evil-lution is quite funny and accurate. It is an OK theory, not a law, the scientist don't call it a law. But it is a putrid idea when it becomes philosophy. Apartheid only ended quite recently thats what happens when you get genetic superiority into your head, and people are naturally very prone to that way of thinking.
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by KeplerThe eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 and the subsequent laying down of layers to form a minature Grand Canyon proves that the layering does not take long at all under the right conditions. 😏
It's not the canyon that takes the time to create, it's laying down those layers of sediment. In the Grand Canyon the layers are exposed so we can see them but you could do the exposing in a couple of weeks with suitable explosives.
It is the layers and the depositional environment in which they were laid down that tells of the time required. I know the yo ...[text shortened]... you will ignore this because it doesn't fit your script but I enjoy making you look idiotic.
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe layers don't form the canyon, it's the erosion through the layers that makes the canyon. In the case of Mount St. Helens, the layers are layers of volcanic ash that were laid down in previous eruptions. The Grand Canyon layers are many different types of rock, mostly sedimentary rocks laid down in different depositional environments with some volcanic layers intermixed.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 and the subsequent laying down of layers to form a minature Grand Canyon proves that the layering does not take long at all under the right conditions. 😏
As it happens, there is a particular type of sedimentary sequence that is laid down in high energy environments such as allegedly obtained during the global flood. Find a worldwide turbidite deposit that goes from big rocks at the bottom to fine silt at the top and you might be on to something. Good luck.
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by KeplerI presented the videos of two geologists and you still refuse to believe the science of the matter. No sense arguing with a numbnuts.
The layers don't form the canyon, it's the erosion through the layers that makes the canyon. In the case of Mount St. Helens, the layers are layers of volcanic ash that were laid down in previous eruptions. The Grand Canyon layers are many different types of rock, mostly sedimentary rocks laid down in different depositional environments with some volcanic lay ...[text shortened]... m big rocks at the bottom to fine silt at the top and you might be on to something. Good luck.
24 Feb 13
Originally posted by sonhouseReally all the Piltdown hoax proved is that it really isn't feasible to perpetuate a deliberate falsehood in science for very long. Scientists love little better than tearing down cherished theories, because that is how you achieve professional immortality.
That is the standard tactic of creationists. For instance, they can't let go of the piltdown man hoax, even after what, 100 years? To them, it is absolute proof of the deceptive behavior of ALL evolution scientists.