Originally posted by RJHindsThe quote you gave said that no multicellular life from the Pre-Cambrian had been found, and that was correct in 1976. But here in the 21st century that evidence has now been found and i provided that evidence for you in a link.
I do not know exactly what they made up, but I believe all life on
earth was created during that one week described in Genesis.
Do you accept that the quote you gave was correct at the time of publication, but 30 years later it's incorrect and out of date?!
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou did not give the complete quote. The context that he said this
The quote you gave said that no multicellular life from the Pre-Cambrian had been found, and that was correct in 1976. But here in the 21st century that evidence has now been found and i provided that evidence for you in a link.
Do you accept that the quote you gave was correct at the time of publication, but 30 years later it's incorrect and out of date?!
was in reference to evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian life forms
in pre-Cambrian rocks. There no evidence of evolution since every
thing found looks the same as today.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes i did, here it is again -
You did not give the complete quote. The context that he said this
was in reference to evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian life forms
in pre-Cambrian rocks. There no evidence of evolution since every
thing found looks the same as today.
"Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rocks! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have never been found."
They hadn't been found in 1976, but now in the 21st century they have been found. I'm not sure what the sticking point is here. Do you think Pre Cambrian life hasn't been found?!
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou may be right, but I doubt that it is indisputable.
Yes i did, here it is again -"Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rocks! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have never been found."
They hadn't been found in 1976, but now in the 21st cen ...[text shortened]... ot sure what the sticking point is here. Do you think Pre Cambrian life hasn't been found?!
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are not making any sense. Evolution, does not, require hybrid animals.
The theory of evolution requires many, many, many, years or reproduction
for animals to evolve into another kind of animal according to evolutionists.
Therefore if hybrid animals are usually sterile they will be unlikely to
reproduce thereby breaking the chain in the evolution process.
Spontaneous generation was proven false by Louis Pastuer, a French
chemist and microbiologist that pasteurized milk is named after.
No. He didn't. He only proved that spontaneous generation is not common and is not the cause of milk going sour. He did not prove that it does not happen.
Regardless if you understand "kind" or not, the point is that there is no
common ancestor to all plants and animals. So you can just forget about
the definition. Since there is no common ancestor, then evolution is
false.
Well then stop telling lies and untruths involving the word 'kind'.
You seem to be the one that is uneducated since you believe in the magic
of evolution. Only the ignorant believe that evolution is a scientific fact.
Very funny. As far as I know the Theory of Evolution is part of the Biology syllabus in every country starting in primary school. You however seem to know practically nothing about it (which you regularly admit).
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadLouis Pastuer proved that you cannot get life from a sterile environment, 'not common'? more mere unsubstantiated opinion.
You are not making any sense. Evolution, does not, require hybrid animals.
[b]Spontaneous generation was proven false by Louis Pastuer, a French
chemist and microbiologist that pasteurized milk is named after.
No. He didn't. He only proved that spontaneous generation is not common and is not the cause of milk going sour. He did not prove that it school. You however seem to know practically nothing about it (which you regularly admit).[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, he did not prove that either.
you're correct, what he proved was that life can only come from previous life.
I know you are just playing stupid, but let me explain it anyway. What he did, was to show that the bacteria that causes milk to go sour does not spontaneously generate every time milk goes sour, but is a life form that is found in the environment and replicates which causes the milk to go sour. He essentially showed that most life that we know today, comes from previous life.
He did not prove that life can only come from previous life.
Originally posted by twhiteheadyour splitting hairs and for a guy as baldy a you that's just plain dangerous!
No, he did not prove that either.
I know you are just playing stupid, but let me explain it anyway. What he did, was to show that the bacteria that causes milk to go sour does not spontaneously generate every time milk goes sour, but is a life form that is found in the environment and replicates which causes the milk to go sour. He essentially showed t ...[text shortened]... , comes from previous life.
He did [b]not prove that life can only come from previous life.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf not, then Robbie must not believe everything written in the Holly Bible.
not even the robbie believes in a one week creation.
Genesis describes what God did each day of the week when all things were
created.
Addition: Notice that there are seven days which is the same as a week.
Originally posted by RJHindsgenesis also describes that plants were created before the stars. that light came to be without a source (sun and stars). the robbe has allowed himself to think for a second and discard something outrageously stupid that in now way has any importance to the christian faith anyway. he still thinks the flood happened and methuselah lived for 900 though. not much progress.
If not, then Robbie must not believe everything written in the Holly Bible.
Genesis describes what God did each day of the week when all things were
created.
oh and by "outrageously stupid" i mean a fairy tale handed down to that age shepherds in order to instill awe at gods awesomeness. a fairy tale meant to give a short timeline of creation to people that could only count to 20 if they wore sandals and their idea of a large number was "as many grain seeds in a field". Go ahead and explain to those people the universe is 15 billion years+. god simply wanted to skip the astrophysics and mathematics required to understand the universe and get to the more important part: preventing the savages to act like jerks to one another. understanding the mechanics of the universe was left to latter pysicists who, surprise!, were not struck down for spreading "falsehoods" about god's creation.
Originally posted by RJHindsnot necessarily so, a day with God is as a thousand years states the Bible, what is more, Paul stated several thousand years later that we are still in Gods rest day, that is the seventh day, and finally there is no basis for assuming that the creative days were a literal twenty four hour period, these divisions of time are man made divisions, in fact, if you check i am sure the Babylonians invented our present divisions of time.
If not, then Robbie must not believe everything written in the Holly Bible.
Genesis describes what God did each day of the week when all things were
created.
Addition: Notice that there are seven days which is the same as a week.