Essan, that's uncalled for, and quite frankly is never going to happen. And it definantly wont happen anytime in the near future when your bones still exist. Technically, bones don't just *exist* after millions of years, they crumble to dust and power, unless of course theya re ARTICULATED fossils, fossils caused by rapid death. Like floods. How many articulated dinosaurs fossils are there again? Most of them are attributed to floods as it is.
Shaftsbury, the site is here:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm
Yes, it has malachite man, but there are several different finds which are none of the above, and I'd like to know WHY it's considered a 'mistake'. And even more so, why there are so many 'mistakes'.
Full Version: Archaeological Cover-ups
QUOTE(Ashley-Star*Child @ Jun 11 2005, 01:22 PM)
No no change has occured. Race changes are the result of climatic conditions and inter-racial connections.
I'm not talking about race changes. I am talking about speciation. I am talking about a brand new species being born that was never in existance prior to that time. Yes, It happens, yes, I do have a specific example. I will present it here as soon as you are willing to stand up and accept the challenge (meaning that you stop all that frantic arm waving and outcrying that nothing exists except what you believe).
QUOTE
This is ALL MICRO-evolution, and there IS evidence for that. There is NO evidence (and, yes you DO need a 'missing link fossil' to prove it) for any species changing into another. Inter-species breeding happens all the time. It was even posted on this board recently, horse/zebra, dolphin/whale. Yes, they are similar animals to begin with and their offspring may end up infertile, but that is not the case all the time. The modern dog, for example, came from several DIFFERENT species of canis, wolf, jackal, fox, etc. Can you now breed any dog with another of a different breed and have fertile offspring? YES.
Ashley Star-Child, I want to make this as absolutely crystal clear as I can possibly make it:
You do not know what the word "species" is defined as.
You do not know what a missing link is.
You do not. At all. You haven't the faintest conception of it. All you have is the mildest abstract notion, because that is all that will allow you to continously writh away from being able to do anything other than deny, but not reason. Every single time you use the word species, you have used it incorrectly, especially when you talk about inter-species breeding, which is by definition (but again, you wouldn't know that) impossible. Every time you refer to the "missing link" as some specific animal that is yet to be discovered, you display your intentional ignorance of evolutionary terminology.
QUOTE
Zanodore, go to the 'Proof of Creationism' thread. It's there, and for anyone else who questions the validity of that site, I suggest you go there yourself.
[right][snapback]668668[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]668668[/snapback][/right]
I have had it with you, Ashley. I am tired of you claiming you have never get answers from evolutionists. I am sick of you getting your arguments debunked and then turning around and presenting then the next day as if nothing had ever happened. I am challenging you, right here and now, to defend this abstract and undefined idea that you claim is more comprehensive than evolution. I am challenging you to a formal debate, Evolutionary theory vs. whatever Enochian creation you are able to scrape together.
can i enrole on the side of Aquatus1
my best three dances against ashley stars best three dances
on the serious side Aquatus may i partake in this great debate.
my best three dances against ashley stars best three dances
on the serious side Aquatus may i partake in this great debate.
QUOTE
Yes, it has malachite man, but there are several different finds which are none of the above, and I'd like to know WHY it's considered a 'mistake'.
Here is the information I came up with to dispute this find, there are other examples of similar claims which have also been overturned. But I think that's a topic suited best for a different thread.
QUOTE
Malachite Man - Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet. This formation is a member of the Lower Cretaceous, supposedly 140 million years old. It is known for its dinosaurs and is the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument. At least four of the ten individuals are female. One is an infant. Some of the bones are articulated. Some are not, appearing to have been washed into place. No obvious tools or artifacts were found associated with the bones. The bulldozer driver who uncovered the first bones in 1971 expresses certainty that there were no tunnels or cracks in the extremely hard overlying layers of rock. The bones are partially replaced with malachite (a green mineral) and turquoise, thus appropriately named "Malachite Man".
Evidence For (Willis/Patton claims):
1) Bones 50 feet deep
2) Bones in extremely hard sandstone.
3) Some bones heavily mineralized
4) No evidence of intrusion
5) The bones are in situ in Dakota Formation which is dated to 150 million years old.
6) The bones were found only a couple years ago (1995 or 1996, depending on the email message)
7) Malachite Man is different from the "Moab Man" and "similar" finds of years past.
First of all there is a controversy regarding the actual finding of these skeletons. When the Malachite Man claim was made, it included several photographs claiming to be taken of the bones insitu. In fact the photographs were found to be identical to those published in "Desert Magazine" of the Moab Man find of 1971.
QUOTE
The "Moab Man" or "Moab skeletons" as they came to be known, consisted of the major portions of two greenish-colored skeletons found in Big Indian Copper mine near Moab, Utah in 1971. The discoverer was a local rockhound named Lin Ottinger, who stumbled on the bones while leading a field trip of mineral collectors in the mine. A bulldozer there had recently removed about 15 feet of overburden, revealing the bones and damaging some of them. Within days the find was investigated by John Marwitt, who was then the Field Director of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey. Marwitt led the remainder of the excavation, and described the bones as resting in loose, poorly consolidated blowsand and sandy matrix, not consolidated rock or hard sandstone. Marwitt indicated that all the bones were completely unfossilized, and in postures reminiscent of known Indian burials. The bones were stained a bluish-green color from contact with copper bearing sediments. Marwitt concluded that the bones were unquestionably intrusive burials, and were probably only hundreds of years old.
Evidence Against (reported by Marwitt):
1) Bones approx. 15 feet deep
2) Bones in soft, sandy matrix.
3) All bones unmineralized (not fossilized at all).
4) Clearly intrusive
5) The mine contains Dakota Formation. but the bones are intrusive (unrelated to age of formation)
6) Bones found in 1971
7) Same bones shown in web photos of "Malachite Man" and 25+ year old Moab Man article.
I have just included a very brief description of the Malachite Man claim and subsequent investigation.
To get a clearer picture you should visit: The Life and Death of Malachite Man
might you be joining teh debate dear shaftsbury
are you actually in shaftsbury?
are you actually in shaftsbury?
QUOTE(Ashley-Star*Child Today @ 09:22 AM )
This is ALL MICRO-evolution, and there IS evidence for that. There is NO evidence (and, yes you DO need a 'missing link fossil' to prove it) for any species changing into another.
Horse Evolution
This might help you understand.
QUOTE(Ashley-Star*Child Today @ 09:22 AM )
Zanodore, go to the 'Proof of Creationism' thread. It's there, and for anyone else who questions the validity of that site, I suggest you go there yourself.
I did....So what?QUOTE(Essan Today @ 09:37 AM )
Let's re-emphasis for the last time: macro evolution is simply the consequence of micro evolution over vast periods of time
If they do not want to be open to the possibility then maybe we should let them stagnate.QUOTE(CROR Today @ 11:27 AM )
can i enrole on the side of Aquatus1
my best three dances against ashley stars best three dances
on the serious side Aquatus may i partake in this great debate.
my best three dances against ashley stars best three dances
on the serious side Aquatus may i partake in this great debate.
The debates are usually one-on-one.
Ill like to add to the arguement. Creationism isn't a scientific theory, it is a myriad set of opinions, usually by fundamamentalist religious group. it doesn't contain one iota of fact in it, and therefore cannot be argued against in a logical manner(such as in this thread). For one Carbon dating is not used to determine the age of Dinosaur, the half-life of C14 is not long enough to be able determine the age. Other forms of radiometric dating must be used. Why we never find any missing link. Would you accept that te archaeopteryx is a missing link? It contains both reptilian and birdlike features, there are many dinosaurs that contains birdlike features as well. The proofs that are used to substantiate creationism are not proofs at all, many of them are actually hoax to perpetuate the creationism myth(such as the dinosaur found with human footprints).
OMG!!! Do you just LIKE incriminating yourself? Horse evolution. THEY are the BEST evidence Evolution has for 'transitional fossils'. No wonder it's Aquatus' pet peeve, I sympathize, really I do. 
Now you DO realize that that 'horse evoloution' is a FRAUD which was exposed in the 1920's don't you? I suggest you do some research. Like here: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-...se-eohippus.htm
Here, I'll even quote it for you.
There is NO credible evidence for Macro evolution, and if that's what you consider the 'laboratory evidence of every semester' you must be joshing me. Perhaps you should actually READ the article this thread was about. Macro Evolution can't even pass chicken farm tests. Which is exactly why many intelligent scientists are shunning evolution.
Evolution, and it's propagandists WILL be exposed for self-serving vainglorious frauds they are. I'm going to make sure of it.
Now you DO realize that that 'horse evoloution' is a FRAUD which was exposed in the 1920's don't you? I suggest you do some research. Like here: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-...se-eohippus.htm
Here, I'll even quote it for you.
QUOTE
Illustrates horse evolution as a straight line pattern of development, which was rejected in 1920, but still pervades textbooks and museums.
Argues the "branching tree pattern" proves evolution is undirected. Evolutionists originally argued evolution was directed which indicates a director! (God) "This doesn't prove directed evolution is true, but only that the branching-tree pattern in the fossil record doesn't refute it." (Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, p201)
The ancestor of the horse is believed to be the size of a cat with four toes on the front and three on the rear. Textbook fraud occurs if the text book argues that the modern horse has the vestigial remnants of the two outer toes on the rear foot but fail to tell you that they find no vestigial remnants of the three outer toes of the front foot. Such basic information is devastating and unexplainable if horse evolution is true and proves the nubs on the rear foot of the modern horse are not vestigial remnants at all!
If they fail to tell you that evolutionists believe North American ungulates evolved their rear foot from 3 toes to a single hoof, but that South American ungulates are believed to have evolved a single hoof to four toes at the same time!
That many informed evolutionists who believe the horse evolved, reject all current explanations of the "stacking of the fossils."
They fail to tell you that the three-toed Neohipparion lived beside (same time) the one-toed Pliohippus.
If they fail to mention the fact that the extinct Hyracotherium (Eohippus) was almost identical in body design, feet, toes and size, to the modern living Hyrax, except for the skull and tail.
If they fail to tell you that they find all "fossil horses" mixed throughout all the different time layers and that only a person looking to prove "horse evolution" would ever try to arrange them is any kind of orderly sequence.
That the rib count, vertebrae count, tooth count and the size of the animal, varies widely and does not show any direct line of progression.
That the fossils have been arranged in many different ways that contradict each other.
If they fail to tell you that modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers.
If they fail to tell you that "Moropus" that lived in the Miocene Age, but is not included in the fossil series although it resembles a horse in great deal. If was not included in the horse sequence because it does not serve to the purpose of the evolutionists, since Moropus was two metres heigh and is larger than both Meryhippuston "horses" of the same age and the horses of today.
Argues the "branching tree pattern" proves evolution is undirected. Evolutionists originally argued evolution was directed which indicates a director! (God) "This doesn't prove directed evolution is true, but only that the branching-tree pattern in the fossil record doesn't refute it." (Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, p201)
The ancestor of the horse is believed to be the size of a cat with four toes on the front and three on the rear. Textbook fraud occurs if the text book argues that the modern horse has the vestigial remnants of the two outer toes on the rear foot but fail to tell you that they find no vestigial remnants of the three outer toes of the front foot. Such basic information is devastating and unexplainable if horse evolution is true and proves the nubs on the rear foot of the modern horse are not vestigial remnants at all!
If they fail to tell you that evolutionists believe North American ungulates evolved their rear foot from 3 toes to a single hoof, but that South American ungulates are believed to have evolved a single hoof to four toes at the same time!
That many informed evolutionists who believe the horse evolved, reject all current explanations of the "stacking of the fossils."
They fail to tell you that the three-toed Neohipparion lived beside (same time) the one-toed Pliohippus.
If they fail to mention the fact that the extinct Hyracotherium (Eohippus) was almost identical in body design, feet, toes and size, to the modern living Hyrax, except for the skull and tail.
If they fail to tell you that they find all "fossil horses" mixed throughout all the different time layers and that only a person looking to prove "horse evolution" would ever try to arrange them is any kind of orderly sequence.
That the rib count, vertebrae count, tooth count and the size of the animal, varies widely and does not show any direct line of progression.
That the fossils have been arranged in many different ways that contradict each other.
If they fail to tell you that modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers.
If they fail to tell you that "Moropus" that lived in the Miocene Age, but is not included in the fossil series although it resembles a horse in great deal. If was not included in the horse sequence because it does not serve to the purpose of the evolutionists, since Moropus was two metres heigh and is larger than both Meryhippuston "horses" of the same age and the horses of today.
There is NO credible evidence for Macro evolution, and if that's what you consider the 'laboratory evidence of every semester' you must be joshing me. Perhaps you should actually READ the article this thread was about. Macro Evolution can't even pass chicken farm tests. Which is exactly why many intelligent scientists are shunning evolution.
Evolution, and it's propagandists WILL be exposed for self-serving vainglorious frauds they are. I'm going to make sure of it.
Source:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
IMO, humans evolve but have not evolved from primates, what are humans evolving into ?
Here are some questions for evolutionists to ponder 
...
1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve?
2. Do you realize how complex living things are? How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place?
3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books’ worth of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system?
12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? What about water?
13. How could stars evolve?
14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old?
15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.
16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?
17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends?
18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago.
19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn’t this implicate Earth as their source—and a powerful launcher, “the fountains of the great deep?”
20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth:
The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Plateaus
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets
Asteroids and Meteoroids
Its just Me_Again learning...thank you to anyone who attempts to answer any of these questions
P.S. Hi Loge
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
IMO, humans evolve but have not evolved from primates, what are humans evolving into ?
Here are some questions for evolutionists to ponder ...1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve?
2. Do you realize how complex living things are? How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place?
3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books’ worth of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system?
12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? What about water?
13. How could stars evolve?
14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old?
15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.
16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?
17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends?
18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago.
19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn’t this implicate Earth as their source—and a powerful launcher, “the fountains of the great deep?”
20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth:
The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Plateaus
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets
Asteroids and Meteoroids
Its just Me_Again learning...thank you to anyone who attempts to answer any of these questions
P.S. Hi Loge
QUOTE
Evolution, and it's propagandists WILL be exposed for self-serving vainglorious frauds they are. I'm going to make sure of it.
you might want to actually learn what evolution IS before you set off on your task.
maybe you can start with the mechanistic view of the universe that acts as the underpinnings of classical evo. but wait, if you do that you will have to equally discredit creationism as well as the entire judao-christian mythology.
oh how tuff it is to cling to artificial constructs as if the world would collapse without them.
try getting out of that bubble and seeing the big picture, you might be surprised.
Hmm, the way macro evolution clings to micro to make itself look credible?
some people never learn.
QUOTE(Ashley-Star*Child @ Jun 14 2005, 03:18 AM)
Evolution, and it's propagandists WILL be exposed for self-serving vainglorious frauds they are. I'm going to make sure of it.
[right][snapback]674982[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]674982[/snapback][/right]
I already challenged you once, Ashley. Are you accepting the challenge to a formal debate?
Put up or shut up.
QUOTE(Me_Again @ Jun 14 2005, 03:32 AM)
Source:
IMO, humans evolve but have not evolved from primates, what are humans evolving into ? Here are some questions for evolutionists to ponder ...
...
Its just Me_Again learning...thank you to anyone who attempts to answer any of these questions
P.S. Hi Loge
[right][snapback]675018[/snapback][/right]
IMO, humans evolve but have not evolved from primates, what are humans evolving into ?
Here are some questions for evolutionists to ponder ......
Its just Me_Again learning...thank you to anyone who attempts to answer any of these questions
P.S. Hi Loge
[right][snapback]675018[/snapback][/right]
Every one of these questions has answers, and I would be most glad to give them to you. However, I am unsure if it really your desire to learn, or if you are simply attempting to overwhelm the Evo's with a blitzkrieg style posting. I invite you to do this:
In the following thread, I answer questions about evolution. It isn't a debate thread, but rather a thread designed to teach the point of view of evolutionary theory. Ask one question at a time, and I will answer it to the best of my ability.
Proof of Evolution
I hope you take me up on it.
QUOTE
IMO, humans evolve but have not evolved from primates
What do they teach in school today? By definition, we are Primates, we meet all the requirements (anatomically) of primates, just as dogs meet all the requirements of Canid. You might want to actually study some science before you make a fool of yourself again! Do like Aquatus1 suggested and read some real information instead of that Creationist garbage - CD
QUOTE(Me_Again @ Jun 14 2005, 03:32 AM)
Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth:
The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
Erosion by a river during a period of continental upthrust
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Tectonics
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Tectonics
Ocean Trenches
Tectonics
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Tectonics and volcanic activity
Earthquakes
Tectonics
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Not sure what you mean here? I assume periodic reversal of the magnetic field produced by Earth's core. Also varying magnetic quanties of different rock type according to iron and other mineral content.
Volcanic rocks forming ocean seafloor with varying directions
Tectonics
Submarine Canyons
Turbidity currents
Coal and Oil Formations
Coal is fossilised plant matter (just like peat, but it's been around longer). Oil is still up for debate.
Methane Hydrates
Like oil (and natural gas), still up for debate.
Ice Age
Natural state of the Earth under current continental configuration. Periodic variation in N Hempishere ice sheet caused by millenial scale climatic shifts and orbital parameters within the Milankovitch cycles.
Frozen Mammoths
Mammoth falls into frozen bog. Drowns. Dies. Simple.
Major Mountain Ranges
Tectonics
Overthrusts
Tectonics
Volcanoes and Lava
Tectonics
Geothermal Heat
Tectonics and volcanic activity
Strata and Layered Fossils
Igneous rock is weathered and forms sediments which are deposited in esturaries and continental margins by rivers. Some animals also washed down by periodic floods etc. Over great periods of time these build stratified layers of fossiliferous rocks.
Metamorphic Rock
Igneous or sedimentary rock transformed by heat/pressure during volcani activity and tectonics
Limestone
Fossil coral reefs / tropical seabeds
Plateaus
Varying effects of erosion on different types of rock
Salt Domes
Result of salt trapped by heavy sedimentation working it's way back upwards to the sea bed
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Tectonics
Changing Axis Tilt
Never played with a spinning top? It's a similar process
Comets
We may know more after Deep Impact, but probably left over material from formation of Solar System
Asteroids and Meteoroids
Left over material from formation of solar system
Of course, there is another possiblity - earth really was built, to order, by the legendary planet Magrathea on behalf of the white mice.......
QUOTE
Of course, there is another possiblity - earth really was built, to order, by the legendary planet Magrathea on behalf of the white mice.......
I was under the impression that Magrathea was a sub contractor and that it was actually the mysterious planet of Maikelau that ordered and planned it!
Otherwise - a great post! - CD
I still have yet to see any credible evidence for Creationism, or any real debunking of Evolutionary theory. All I've seen is several anomalies, which the Creationists latch onto to prove their beliefs. Usually, these anomalies either fit into Evolutionary theory, are hoaxes/are of dubious origin, or very rarely they actually turn out to be authentic. When they are, it doesn't take too long to explain them.
Ashley, no matter what you claim, transition fossils HAVE been found, Micro Evolution IS part of Macro Evolution, and Evolution DOES have more (A great deal more) evidence behind it than your Enoch accounts.
Ashley, no matter what you claim, transition fossils HAVE been found, Micro Evolution IS part of Macro Evolution, and Evolution DOES have more (A great deal more) evidence behind it than your Enoch accounts.
QUOTE
What do they teach in school today? By definition, we are Primates, we meet all the requirements (anatomically) of primates, just as dogs meet all the requirements of Canid. You might want to actually study some science before you make a fool of yourself again! Do like Aquatus1 suggested and read some real information instead of that Creationist garbage - CD
Making a "fool" of myself is quite appealing - thank you
I thought we were mammals, thanks for the correction .I do understand and I will stick with my, "it makes sense to me" phrase....everyone (soul - that is if you believe in a spiritual side of humans) has the chance to experience everything...so yes, I can see how we were once sea creatures or sea monkey's or chimpanzees, along with many other things. This has helped me and I thank those who took the time to respond. You either know there is a soul (as Loge would say "Cosmic Christ"
) or you don't know, it depends on your spiritual evolution I personally don't choose to live this life thinking that it is my one and only - how unsatisfying
Hi aquatus1
Note: This is my opinion
http://www.kisol.com/man/evolutionofman.htm
So much for spell check
QUOTE
I personally don't choose to live this life thinking that it is my one and only - how unsatisfying
And I too, but there is weak circumstantial evidence for reincarnation - even the ancient Jews toyed with the idea, so maybe we do have more than one life until we become one with the cosmos - I dunno, thinking that hard makes my head hurt,
- cd
QUOTE(Me_Again @ Jun 15 2005, 04:12 AM)
I thought we were mammals, thanks for the correction
Mammalia--Eutheria (placental mammals)--Primates
--Catarrhini--Hominidae--Homo--sapiens
QUOTE
You either know there is a soul (as Loge would say "Cosmic Christ" ) or you don't know, it depends on your spiritual evolution
Just makes sure you don't confuse spiritual evolution (a mystical subject) with evolutionary theory (a scientific subject).
Hi aquatus1
Note: This is my opinion
http://www.kisol.com/man/evolutionofman.htm
[right][snapback]677512[/snapback][/right]
) or you don't know, it depends on your spiritual evolution QUOTE
Just makes sure you don't confuse spiritual evolution (a mystical subject) with evolutionary theory (a scientific subject).
Note: This is my opinion
http://www.kisol.com/man/evolutionofman.htm
[right][snapback]677512[/snapback][/right]
Skimmed through it and didn't really see anything off-hand that would contradict evolutionary theory. My offer remains, so if you wish for more elaborate answers to any of your questions, I remain available.
Proof of Evolution
QUOTE(Me_Again Posted Today @ 12:12 AM )
Note: This is my opinion
http://www.kisol.com/man/evolutionofman.htm
http://www.kisol.com/man/evolutionofman.htm
QUOTE(THE EVOLUTION OF MAN)
It was the beginning of the evolution of the spirit core of man into the state it is today. Surely this could not have been achieved in just a few million years. We underestimate the geological age of the human species. The first human spirits therefore, must have incarnated millions of years ago. Only this incarnation occurred at different places.
QUOTE(THE EVOLUTION OF MAN)
The five billion peoples on earth today did not start out on their development at the same time and consequently did not incarnate at the same time but the very first who did must have done so many millions of years ago. There must have been spirit germs who incarnated into bodies which were already on the way to becoming human, since the incarnation and entrance into animal bodies at the mid-cycle only takes place once in any particular part of the universe. Therefore there must have been spirit germs whose first incarnation was into bodies already on the way to becoming human.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.