1 edit
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
"hundreds millions years ago" must mean BC (Before Creation), doesn't it?
RJHinds gives us facts that disprove Creationism! Well, done! Good boy!
1 edit
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.
Once is a fail. Twice is a thought behind.
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.
Thank you for confirming that. Well done! Good boy!
YouTube can be correct sometimes.
4 edits
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.
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 such as genetic experiments, we know that evolution actually happens in relatively quick bursts followed by long lulls during which not much change happens. This is just the way science works; when evidence contradicts an old theory, science either modifies it to form a new modified theory to become consistent with the new evidence or replaces it with a totally different new theory consistent with the new evidence. In this case, there was no totally different alternative theory that could explain the evidence so the old theory was modified into a new theory to fit the evidence -just like good science is supposed to do. In this case, the new theory of evolution that replaced the old one is called punctuated equilibrium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
We also have a pretty good idea of why punctuated equilibrium happens.
Evolution by punctuated equilibrium is a proven scientific fact only in part because the fossil record shows it. Thus, by both pointing out and showing evidence of punctuated equilibrium, you are confirming evolution by punctuated equilibrium -which means you score your own goal against your religion even though that is weird of you because you must have already heard of punctuated equilibrium! So, just as I suspected; your own reasoning here, like always, doesn't make any intelligible sense whatsoever. But at least the mystery of your warped delusional reasoning on this matter is now solved so I will block your posts again.
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.
Science doesn't work like that. OF COURSE there are pieces of the picture we have not yet solved.
You figure that means the whole science of evolution can be disregarded.
That is far from the truth. The truth is we learn more each year about evolution, genetics, age of the Earth, life origins and so forth.
We are picking ourselves up by our own bootstraps and it takes centuries.
You think evolution should be giving answers immediately.
It just doesn't work that way so you figure you can use that as a weapon, weaponized science again just like you always do, in your vain attempt, pathetic actually, attempt to force creationism down the throats of students in a science class. Hopefully that will never happen. If it does, you will find me leaving to live with my daughter in Brazil.
2 edits
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.
How could people have survived a crater 185 miles in diameter if it was only a few thousand years old, where ejecta from that site was found 1500 miles away?
Why wouldn't such a thing have been recorded by SOMEBODY?
Such a hit would have meant the end of mankind and 80% of everything else on the planet. How do you explain how we survived AND how do you explain the extreme lack of ANYTHING written down about such an event which surely would have been one of the defining moments in human history?
Would you just deny such an event happened? Whether it was a giant volcano or an asteroid strike it would have devastated the planet and killed pretty much every human on the planet because, for one thing, there would have been no sunlight for years because of the clouds of dust in the atmosphere so we could not have grown crops.
This is not something that could EVER have happened only a few thousand years ago.
I think you would respect National Geographic, right?
Here is an article about the ten biggest strikes in Earth's history:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130214-biggest-asteroid-impacts-meteorites-space-2012da14/
Look at this article. Tell me what you think would have happened if all 10 of those had happened say 5000 years ago and why nobody wrote about it back then and further, how we could have survived such hits.
1 edit
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.
How do you propose the human race could have survived 10 huge hits by asteroids that would have happened in the last 10,000 years?
Why don't you picture in your OWN mind the ejecta of these hits that spread out LITERALLY thousands of miles and would have created clouds of dust blocking the sun LITERALLY for years at a time.
Just how do you propose people could have grown crops under those conditions?
THINK. Think with your OWN brain for once.