1. As I said I dont believe the earth is 7,000 years old. I keep an open mind that it could be billions of years old and perhaps even more. But what do fossils have to do with anything? Once again, you are putting the entire evolution of an entire species on one units mutation. You actually think that this one mutated and evolved reptile spawned the entire new generation of reptiles with the same trait, and that information was never lost. Thats nonsense. The odds of every member of a species evolving a trait and being able to pass that along is already disproved in labs. When virus's are subjected to harsh conditions, they die. When a species is subjected to harsh conditions, they die. Its possible a few survived, but the idea that the entire species can then be reborn with the new traits forever onward is NONSENSE. and your fossils prove it. The same dinosaurs found on the western hemisphere adapted the same traits as the same type of dino found on the eastern hemisphere separated by thousands of miles well after pangea split apart...yet somehow that uncommon adapted and evolved trait formed around the world? Lol is all i can say to that one.
deadpool86x
One word: superbugs. Bacteria resistent to antibiotics, which were naturally selected as they were the ones to survive the exposure to that antibiotic. This has been observed in practice.
Another word: speciation. Take two members of the same species, separate them into separate environments, and come back later. Now you have two new species, each adapted to their environment. This has been observed in practice.
Your claim is false.
2. That is 100% your opinion and not fact in the slightest degree. You'd never be able to tell if this species was related and the evolved form of another. Over billions of years, the changes would be so drastic, you'd not be able to see it. The simple fact that you said this is proof that you think sudden drastic changes have to had occurred all at the same time across the entire species.
deadpool86x
Not my opinion at all. Fish have defining traits that identify them as fish. So do amphibians, and so do reptiles, birds, and mammals. Fossils have been found that have traits in two classes - but always only two classes, never three or more.
Your claim is false.
3. Carbon Dating is proven to be dreadfully inaccurate. There was a discovery program on recently that showed a scientists trying to date a synthetic something with a real thing, both were dated the same and one was created hours before in a lab. Its a joke of a test and not at all credible. Your textbooks say it, therefore its true to you.
deadpool86x
A few things:
1. Carbon dating is a case of garbage-in-garbage-out. You could synthesize something that seems artificially old by carefully measuring the proportion between radioactive carbon and stable carbon. However, when used on something that has been unsubjected to contamination, it is reasonably accurate, and many carbon-dated items have agreed with other forms of dating, like tree rings and ice cores.
2. Carbon dating is not used to date fossils.
3. There are forms of dating that are resistant to contamination, which fall under the banner of isochron dating.
Your claim is false, and your mention of carbon dating when fossils are dated through other means proves that you do not even understand the barest essentials of that which you are attempting to rebut.
4. If you could prove that, you would be the absolutely first being on earth to do so. The only thing that connects us in my mind is that we are born of the same atoms and material found after stars explode. That entire logic in nonsense.
deadpool86x
Sorry, but wrong. If you name me any two organisms on Earth, I can list you all of their common traits.
Youor claim is false.
5. Once again, that is not a logical defense in the slightest. You again think that one mutated creature in a species that is composed of possible hundreds of billions like insects, repopulated the entire species with that one trait that lingered onward for billions of years. Sorry, but flies that exist in Russia adapted the same traits as those found in Canada. Separated by thousands of miles and subjected to different conditions but all of them adapted the same way? You think because we have remnants of a tailbone that we are somehow related to another species? Thats not at all proven or scientific fact and is 100% fabricated opinion.
deadpool86x
If we did not evolve from an animal with a tail, then why do we have a tailbone?
If flightless birds did not evolve from birds that flew, then why do they have hollow bones?
No offense, but I believe that you are being wilfully ignorant here: you are not even attempting to understand anything at all, and are merely attempting to understand the barest essentials of the argument so you can attempt to mount a rebuttal.
Getting back to what this was about, I believe that evolution is set forth by a control, a god or whatever you wish to call it. I do not believe that 0 can produce a number that not only repeats itself infinitely, but is a specific number that adapted itself to fit the conditions around it on a universal scale. The day you can justify 0+0=any number is the day I wont believe in god.
the idea that God is 1 and always existed is mathematically and scientifically accurate, and that 1 always existed and created. 1+x=y
the idea that there is no god and the universe always existed as a singularity represented by 0, but then created something else on an infinitely repeating and SPECIFIC to the needs of life at the start of all things is NONSENSE. 0+0=0. Those who dont believe in god denounce all mathematics. the idea that nothing created itself and then something else and again something else repeating a specific number
deadpool86x
What you have just said here is a meaningless ad hoc combination of science and mathematics that is neither valid science nor valid mathematics, and as such there is nothing even here for me to rebut, as you have made no coherent claims that can be rebutted.
Log in to comment