@RED DEVIL cv,
RED DEVIL;48431 wrote:SPIN? Now, lets get this logic straight, the land, which at one time HAD to be equal in elevation or level to produce 29,000 ft. of mass was never under water but the mountain was. Present your evidence of this paradox of conclusion if you will.
You got it backwards... somehow. I even bolded it. The land mass that once made up Everest was under water.
Everest, the mountain was never under water.
That we can show. We can also show that the shells were deposited in an order. They had to have lived on or around that piece of land for that to occur. Otherwise they'd be scattered everywhere, randomly.
So, if underwater life lived on that piece of land, and that piece of land is currently in the form of a
mountain, which would be impossible to cover with water (you and I agree on this), then you come to the conclusion that the mountain formed out of a land mass that was under water over a long period of time.
Your hypothesis says that massive flood waters deposited these shells AND made this mountain. Well, firstly, floods to not make mountains. They'd erode the hell out one, I guarantee that. As I already mentioned, the shell deposit would be random and would include species that REALLY shouldn't belong in that area, even when it was underwater.
Quote:You say "IF YOUR FAITH WAS TRUTH, I WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE IT". Yet I notice that there is no "LAW OF EVOLUTION", and "YOU" are the one professing to have "THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH"....please produce this proof, instead of just throwing personal attacks around that are in themselves an admission of not having the facts and deflecting the topic in trying to induce anger. Quite humorous, actually. Your conclusions that flooding shatters refuse is misplaced as it has been proven that flood waters accumulate refuse and gather those items together, not scatter them and distribute them randomly. There is no proof actual to present, all pseudo science offers is speculation dressed as facts and presented in long winded calculations that make them seem reasonable without really providing the facts. As I said, blind faith, is more prevalent in EVOLUTION than religion, as least religion is logical in its conclusion of creation instead of presenting the paradox that nature created itself. If something has a beginning it must have a creator, and to say that nature created itself is indeed a paradox. For that means that it would have had to exist "eternally" or self created, and nothing can exist before it is created. One simple question presents the paradox. Where did the mass/matter come from that supplied the energy for the "big bang", if it was not CREATED? And if that energy has existed eternally it is God and defies the laws of physics. It has been proven that the universe is ending, thus it must of had a beginning and the big bang is not a beginning for it indeed needs a cause and effect to be considered science. RD
Proof the universe is ending. Links please. NOBODY knows that. There's no way we can tell you that the universe is ending. Put away the picket signs.
You misuse science again. The whole Law thing. Laws are basic boundaries for which science must work within. Laws may in fact be disproven, but that takes a LOT of hard facts and evidence. LOTS.
Just because something is a theory, does not mean we don't have evidence for it. Moreso, a theory thrives on evidence. A theory is something that can still take on some change, but theories must still abide by those laws.
Relativity. We pretty much know that this one's right. We sometimes hope like hell it isn't, but it hits the nail on the head. Still a theory. Nobody disagrees with this.
Gravity. Drop a book, gravity pulls it to the ground. How? We know what it does, we know it exists. We don't know exactly what it is. Theory. Nobody disagrees with gravity. Those that do eventually wind up in pain.
Evolution. Here we go. In science, evolution ITSELF is not debated. The concept that all life has a common ancestor can be seen in genetics, observed in real life, both your microevolution (change within species... color for example) and your macroevolution (change above the species level... new species, speciation... we've observed this happening), and predicted through DNA and natural selection. Science as a whole agrees on this basic concept.
Exponentially expanding population + finite space and resources = competition
Mutation + reproduction (passing down genes) = variation
Variation + competition = Natural selection (The best variations survive)
Natural selection + time = Evolution
We have observed, both in nature and in lab, this simple process.
Where the debate comes in, is where exactly do these fossils we find fit within this concept. It's like a puzzle. We have the box top which shows us what the picture looks like, and a pile of pieces in front of us. We've put a whole lot of it together, but some small bits are still missing. Some people say certain pieces shouldn't fit in certain areas.
But what the puzzle should look like, nobody disagrees on.
The evidence for evolution is all over the place. Again, we've observed both "micro" and "macro" evolution (I defined these, I gave examples of these). You asked for transitionals, and I showed them to you. They show evidence of the changes that eventually gave rise to new species.
Tiktaalik shows us the line where water creatures start trying to move onto land. It shows us where life started to split between fish and tetrapods. It shows that fish and tetrapods shared a common ancestor (the definition of Evolution).
Archaeopteryx shows the line where birds split off from reptiles. It shows that reptiles and birds once shared a common ancestor.
The problem here is your lack of understanding of exactly what evolution is, makes you throw away all shown evidence. If you sit, research, and see what evolution ACTUALLY says, it will make a whole lot more sense.
But first get some basic science happening. You're lacking a lot in that particular area.
