Originally posted by sonhouse
You are so full of shyte you can't make distinctions any more. You need to check your meds.
When Obama bows to a Saudi king, he is being diplomatic, showing respect, not cow towing to a superior.
If you look at the GNP of Saudi vs the GNP of the US you might find a tiny difference there.
Obama wants to ensure a steady supply of oil till we can du ...[text shortened]... hen you talk like that, YOU are the enemy of the US, disrespecting the office of the presidency.
When Obama bows to a Saudi king, he is being diplomatic, showing respect, not cow towing to a superior.I think you may mean Kowtowing. Cow towing is when one drags a cow.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf you are really interested in how the fossil record supporst creation then here is what a leading evolutionist said:
This thread is way off-topic. Please discuss the US politics in the Debate Forum. Unless you think the Senate really is spiritual...
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard,
"The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..."
Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682.
"Since the so called Cambrian Explosion... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record."
Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's 2014, not the 1990's. Try again.
If you are really interested in how the fossil record supporst creation then here is what a leading evolutionist said:
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard,
[b] "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chor ...[text shortened]... sion... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record."
Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsYou do realise Gould was talking about events that happened around 500 million years ago? This hardly supports creationism.
If you are really interested in how the fossil record supporst creation then here is what a leading evolutionist said:
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard,
[b] "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chor ...[text shortened]... sion... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record."
Lecture at SMU, 10/2/1990[/b]
Originally posted by DeepThoughtGould also believed in evolution, so of course, he would also believe in the old ages without question. But the point is that even though he bought into this evolution fraud, he knew that the fossil record didn't support Darwin's idea, but supported a sudden appearance of all Phyla of animals, just like Genesis says.
You do realise Gould was talking about events that happened around 500 million years ago? This hardly supports creationism.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you say that Gould supported creationism? You are not such a genius as you seem to think.
Gould also believed in evolution, so of course, he would also believe in the old ages without question. But the point is that even though he bought into this evolution fraud, he knew that the fossil record didn't support Darwin's idea, but supported a sudden appearance of all Phyla of animals, just like Genesis says.
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, I did not say Gould supported creationism. I said he was an evolutionists. What I said was that he made observations and statements about them that supported creationism.
So you say that Gould supported creationism? You are not such a genius as you seem to think.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhich of course you completely mis-interpreted as supporting creationism. Jump on ANYTHING creationists think will support their political cause.
No, I did not say Gould supported creationism. I said he was an evolutionists. What I said was that he made observations and statements about them that supported creationism.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you quote an evolutionist and hold his words for true?
No, I did not say Gould supported creationism. I said he was an evolutionists. What I said was that he made observations and statements about them that supported creationism.
Good boy! Well done!
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't believe all evolutionists are dishonest; many evolutionists are deceived. A few discover this and and even become YEC Christians. I believe Gould remained deceived, but was honest enough to tell the truth about what the fossil record showed.
So you quote an evolutionist and hold his words for true?
Good boy! Well done!
Originally posted by RJHindsThe problem with this is that there are fossils from the Edicarian. There are microscopic fossils from 3.5 billion year old rocks. The Cambrian explosion refers to an increase in the variety of fossils, it does not refer to their initial appearance.
Gould also believed in evolution, so of course, he would also believe in the old ages without question. But the point is that even though he bought into this evolution fraud, he knew that the fossil record didn't support Darwin's idea, but supported a sudden appearance of all Phyla of animals, just like Genesis says.