30 Apr '14 07:22>
Originally posted by RJHindsWe all know that...
I am certainly not qualified...
Originally posted by RJHindsInteresting facts. In its comments we can read "Traits of Cambrian life forms that existed hundreds millions years ago, yet which still amaze scientists today."
Cambrian Explosion Clarified
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyEHNg1O3QM
Originally posted by FabianFnasI find that really weird of him -why did he give a link that so clearly contradicts his religion? What point does he think he is making? I have no idea. Perhaps, in his delusional mind, he thinks the link, somehow, says his religion is right!? -don't know how that can be twisted so.
Interesting facts. In its comments we can read "Traits of Cambrian life forms that existed hundreds millions years ago, yet which still amaze scientists today."
"hundreds millions years ago" must mean BC (Before Creation), doesn't it?
RJHinds gives us facts that disprove Creationism! Well, done! Good boy!
Originally posted by humyAnd not only in Science forum - where it actually is correct to refute creationism - but also in Spiritual Forum!
I find that really weird of him -why did he give a link that so clearly contradicts his religion? What point does he think he is making? I have no idea. Perhaps, in his delusional mind, he thinks the link, somehow, says his religion is right!? -don't know how that can be twisted so.
Originally posted by humyThe point is that these first fossil skeletons in the Cambrian rock layer represent animals that look exactly like they do today. They have not changed over time like evolution claims. These fossil skeletons appear abrubtly, fully formed, with no transitional fossil that lead to a common ancestor in sight. That is the exact opposite of what the Darwin evolution theory predicts with its slow gradual changes, but exactly what the creationism theory predicts.
I find that really weird of him -why did he give a link that so clearly contradicts his religion? What point does he think he is making? I have no idea. Perhaps, in his delusional mind, he thinks the link, somehow, says his religion is right!? -don't know how that can be twisted so.
Originally posted by RJHindsCambrian period? From hundreds millions years ago as you recently confirmed? Twice?
The point is that these first fossil skeletons in the Cambrian rock layer represent animals that look exactly like they do today. They have not changed over time like evolution claims. These fossil skeletons appear abrubtly, fully formed, with no transitional fossil that lead to a common ancestor in sight. That is the exact opposite of what the Darwin evo ...[text shortened]... theory predicts with its slow gradual changes, but exactly what the creationism theory predicts.
Originally posted by RJHindsI unblocked you post just for this post to hope to gain insight of your mysteries delusional mind here:
The point is that these first fossil skeletons in the Cambrian rock layer represent animals that look exactly like they do today. They have not changed over time like evolution claims. These fossil skeletons appear abrubtly, fully formed, with no transitional fossil that lead to a common ancestor in sight. That is the exact opposite of what the Darwin evo ...[text shortened]... theory predicts with its slow gradual changes, but exactly what the creationism theory predicts.
Originally posted by humyThis punctuated equilibrium is nothing but fancy double talk for we don't have a clue how to rescue evolution from the garbage heap of busted theories.
I unblocked you post just for this post to hope to gain insight of your mysteries delusional mind here:
We have now long known Darwin, although right about the existence of evolution, was wrong with his assumption of evolution always causing change at the same unchanging slow rate. Only partly from the fossil record and partly from other sources of data suc ...[text shortened]... your warped delusional reasoning on this matter is now solved so I will block your posts again.
Originally posted by RJHindsIn your mind you think we should be able to go, like in physics, from Aristotle to Einstein in one fell swoop.
This punctuated equilibrium is nothing but fancy double talk for we don't have a clue how to rescue evolution from the garbage heap of busted theories.
Originally posted by RJHindsPresumably, you would say it happened a few thousand years ago.
I am certainly not qualified to solve this controversy as to the process. However, the 2.02 billion years ago claim is obviously an exaggeration.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy don't you use your OWN brain and think about the consequences of 10 MAJOR hits to the Earth that in your delusion you think would have happened in the last few thousand years. No Egyptian cartouches, nothing carved in stone before there was writing.
Maybe they had not started writing at that time.