Creation vs. Evolution

[SeanQ]

What I see is an article that describes the discovery and verification of the genuity of a footprint. What it tries to do is "let the evidence speak for itself" which is subjective to the biases of the reader. The article implies the area assumed to 225 myo is actually much younger which, somehow, proves creation. It's like saying "This footprint is wasn't carved or fabricated, thus, Elvis is alive."

 

[Hammerhead]

One analogy I like is imagining a bottle full of marbles. Lets say there are 100 marbles in the bottle. 90 are blue, 90 are red and 20 are yellow.

:lol: :lol:

Well, at least you haven't lost your marbles.

 

[SeanQ]

:lol: :lol:

How many marbles?

Well, at least you haven't lost your marbles.

Err... 200? That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :11doh:

See? I can edit my posts too.

 

[Wolverine]

Even other Creationists discredit him!

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

 

[Hammerhead]

Err... 200? That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :11doh:

See? I can edit my posts too.

Can you edit my posts quoting you though?

Edit. This could get complicated. It was a nice and simple religious discussio 'till we started quoting one another and counting marbles.

 

[Diver Dennis]

Even other Creationists discredit him!

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm

True, but it was a bad example. There are some more persuasive and honest points out there. I don't want to turn this into a creationist bashing. It's too bad they used him for an example.

 

[SeanQ]

Can you edit my posts quoting you though?

Edit. This could get complicated. It was a nice and simple religious discussio 'till we started quoting one another and counting marbles.

The creationists manipulate scientist's quotes for their purposes so I see no reason why a little bit of creative editing on my part shouldn't be allowed.

Oops, there goes a snide remark.

 

[Wolverine]

:shakehead true. I don't really want to bash them but they really need some good sensible chaps to come here to prove their point. The only problem I see is that all they have is points. No evidence or even observations. Hard to win an argument on that basis.

 

[Hammerhead]

yup. look at regressive evolution. those jellies at jellyfish lake.

Poor example, catherinenumbernumbernumbernumbernumber.

The jellyfish didn't "lose" their ability to sting. The necessity for this ability became redundant so it was jetissoned.

To draw an analogy, when being actually furry became unnecessary to early humanoids (clothing, fire etc.), they evolved without most of their body hair.

An amusing aside - did you know that said jellyfishes still retain a vestigial ability to sting (much like the vestigial hair on my chest, I suppose)?

Anyway a friend of mine (but a bit of a fruitcake) when swimming in jellyfish lake, thought it would be amusing to cram as many of the creatures as he could into his swim shorts.

He discovered in approximately 3-5 minutes that the jellyfish still retained their sting, but it was only effective on particularly sensitive skin.

I leave the rest to your imagination.

I laughed, anyway.

 

[Diver Dennis]

:shakehead true. I don't really want to bash them but they really need some good sensible chaps to come here to prove their point. The only problem I see is that all they have is points. No evidence or even observations. Hard to win an argument on that basis.

So true Tim. It's unfortunate that in any belief system, there seem to be a few that are not quite right.


Well, I haven't looked up that "Friends"episode yet...