It seems to me that more people favor evolution over creation.
But I ask, what physical proof can I go out and look at or touch that tells me that humans were once monkeys?
I don't wanna to read any thing, I wanna go out and see something evolve.
I'm not saying creation is the truth either, I'm just saying, the bible talks about how things happened back in the day, none of us can go back and see how these things happened in the bible, same as a science book.
Originally posted by Who else?
It seems to me that more people favor evolution over creation.But I ask, what physical proof can I go out and look at or touch that tells me that humans were once monkeys?
I don't wanna to read any thing, I wanna go out and see something evolve.
I'm not saying creation is the truth either, I'm just saying, the bible talks about how things happened back in the day, none of us can go back and see how these things happened in the bible, same as a science book.
First you have to get a good book on evolution and read it. Then you will understand that we did not evolve from monkeys.
Do you believe in plate tectonics?
Originally posted by Who else?
It seems to me that more people favor evolution over creation.But I ask, what physical proof can I go out and look at or touch that tells me that humans were once monkeys?
I don't wanna to read any thing, I wanna go out and see something evolve.
I'm not saying creation is the truth either, I'm just saying, the bible talks about how things happened back in the day, none of us can go back and see how these things happened in the bible, same as a science book.
Actually, there is scientific evidence for evolution.
You can't just go out and witness something that will take longer than your lifetime, but there is evidence for it working and the theory is working.
This info from http://www.creationists.org/gentrybiography.html
Dr. Robert Gentry's main page on our web site
In his early career, Robert V. Gentry served as a physicist (B.S., M.S.; University of Florida) in the nuclear/space defense industries and taught college/university math and physics. He then developed an absorbing interest in testing the conventional evolutionary model of Earth’s origin and age, and has dedicated his scientific career to finding answers that could only be obtained through years of investigating fossil traces of an extraordinary type of radioactivity inscribed in Earth’s basement rocks, the granites. His research so far has resulted in authoring or co-authoring over twenty research papers in scientific publications, such as Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Most of these reports were published during the thirteen years (1969-1982) he spent as a Visiting Scientist in the Chemistry Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, some of which detailed discovery of evidence of Earth’s rapid creation and its young age. In 1977 these discoveries led to an honorary D.Sc., and subsequently to his being called to testify in defense of the state’s creation position at the 1981 Arkansas creation/evolution trial. There he testified his discoveries disproved Earth’s evolutionary origin and instead affirmed the Genesis account of Earth’s six-day creation and young age.
His book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, recounts how ACLU evolutionist witnesses failed to refute his discovery of evidence of Earth’s instant creation, being forced to say it was only "a tiny mystery," which they hoped someday to solve. Silence concerning this continuing failure to overthrow this proof of creation has thus far been secured by the evolutionists censoring discussion of this topic from scientific journals for over two decades.
Even more blatant censorship of his most recent discoveries began in early 2001 when Los Alamos National Laboratory personnel deleted his ten scientific papers on cosmology and astrophysics from their U. S. government sponsored e-print archive, prior to their scheduled release on the Internet on the evenings of 2/28/01 and 3/5/01. Continued suppression of these papers, now by Cornell University, stems both from the resistance of evolutionists to the implications of his discovery that the universe possesses a nearby universal Center -- which overthrows big-bang cosmology with its crucial assumption of a no-center universe -- and from his discovery of GENESIS, a new astrophysical model of the cosmos which affirms that the literal six-day Genesis record includes the creation of the visible universe.
More information on his book and two documentary videos about his work, Fingerprints of Creation and The Young Age of the Earth, both of which have aired on various PBS stations since the fall of 2001, is available at www.halos.com. More information about his ten papers and documentation of censorship, first by Los Alamos and more recently by Cornell University, is available at www.orionfdn.org. Dr. Gentry is a long-time member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, Research Society of Sigma Xi, the American Physical Society, and the New York Academy of Sciences. For several years he has been listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in Science and Engineering.
Originally posted by Who else?
It seems to me that more people favor evolution over creation.But I ask, what physical proof can I go out and look at or touch that tells me that humans were once monkeys?
I don't wanna to read any thing, I wanna go out and see something evolve.
I'm not saying creation is the truth either, I'm just saying, the bible talks about how things happened back in the day, none of us can go back and see how these things happened in the bible, same as a science book.
Firstly theres the fossil records where you see transitional species between apes and man (i really dont get where creationists get the idea that theres isnt any, which they think instantly proves creation)
Also, i've said this many time, genetics pretty much cements evolution- e.g. the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are 96% similar- how could have that happened if we didnt have a close common ancestor
Originally posted by Bardock42That's what I mean, the time it takes to evolve seems very convenient for science
Actually, there is scientific evidence for evolution.You can't just go out and witness something that will take longer than your lifetime, but there is evidence for it working and the theory is working.
Originally posted by Crimson PhoenixWhat proof is there that these fossil records are real?
Firstly theres the fossil records where you see transitional species between apes and man (i really dont get where creationists get the idea that theres isnt any, which they think instantly proves creation)
Also, i've said this many time, genetics pretty much cements evolution- e.g. the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are 96% similar- how could have that happened if we didnt have a close common ancestor
Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
Firstly theres the fossil records where you see transitional species between apes and man (i really dont get where creationists get the idea that theres isnt any, which they think instantly proves creation)
Also, i've said this many time, genetics pretty much cements evolution- e.g. the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are 96% similar- how could have that happened if we didnt have a close common ancestor
Chimpanzees were god's human prototypes. 😆 God had to practice before he could make man. 😆
Originally posted by Who else?
That's what I mean, the time it takes to evolve seems very convenient for science
Wow, you just disproved Evolution theory... "It happens too slow."
Originally posted by Who else?
That's what I mean, the time it takes to evolve seems very convenient for science What proof is there that these fossil records are real?
Because we can physically touch and test them over and over... Do you think they're fake, if so, how did they get there, who faked them?
Robert V. Gentry
>Creationist
>Physicist and chemist
>D.Sc. (honorary) from Columbia Union College
>M.S. in Physics from University of Florida
>Graduate work at Georgia Institute of Technology
>Often considered the world's foremost authority on radiohalos
>Former Guest Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission
>Published scientific papers in Nature, Science, Applied Physics Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, etc.
Originally posted by Phenoix12
Robert V. Gentry
>Creationist>Physicist and chemist
>D.Sc. (honorary) from Columbia Union College
>M.S. in Physics from University of Florida
>Graduate work at Georgia Institute of Technology
>Often considered the world's foremost authority on radiohalos
>Former Guest Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission
>Published scientific papers in Nature, Science, Applied Physics Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, etc.
We have all seen it before. JIA is in love with the man. 🙄
Originally posted by Phenoix12
Robert V. Gentry
>Creationist>Physicist and chemist
>D.Sc. (honorary) from Columbia Union College
>M.S. in Physics from University of Florida
>Graduate work at Georgia Institute of Technology
>Often considered the world's foremost authority on radiohalos
>Former Guest Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission
>Published scientific papers in Nature, Science, Applied Physics Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, etc.
And? For every "Young Earth" scientist with credentials, there's many more scientist with equal or greater credentials that say otherwise.
Let me guess, you'll drop the debate-killer "Hovind" on us next?
Originally posted by Who else?
That's what I mean, the time it takes to evolve seems very convenient for science
What do you mean convienient. Do you know what it takes for these things to be discovered? If you want to see a simple example of evolution within the past few centuries, look at the peppered moth. before the industrial revoltion, the majority of peppered moths were the white form. then after, the white form started dying out because they had no camoufladge against the soot covered trees, but a mutation arised were with a black peppered which could Camouflage better. Then as the envirmonment improved the white form became prevelant again.
Originally posted by RobtardI'm not trying to disprove the Evolutionary theory, I'm just trying to look a things from both sides of the argument.
Wow, you just disproved Evolution theory... "It happens too slow."Because we can physically touch and test them over and over... Do you think they're fake, if so, how did they get there, who faked them?
What I'm saying is, I wasn't out there in the archaeological dig, so these people can make what ever they want for what ever reason and lie.
Originally posted by Who else?
I'm not trying to disprove the Evolutionary theory, I'm just trying to look a things from both sides of the argument.What I'm saying is, I wasn't out there in the archaeological dig, so these people can make what ever they want for what ever reason and lie.
Fair enough.
Okay, why would they lie? Why would so many lie? What is to be gained by "faking" Evolution science?