Christians upset over Golden Compass

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.



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.

For me that was a very well put together post and there's not much you can argue there.

However Gents this is a topic about fluffy Polar Bears turning little Christian children into Satan worshiping killers, please stay on topic

Wow there are parts of the world where no rain, snow, dew, or condensation occur? I challenge anyone to provide the "empirical" proof, that there is just "one" place on this earth were it has not been under water. Empirical proof, not "caulk board" theories that are only located between the ears of some that choose to live their live in theory instead of the real world. It will be hard to prove, especially sense "sea shells" have been found atop Mt. Everest, some 5 miles above sea level.

The Himalayas - Geology - Visual Evidences of Himalayan Formation

The Bible tells that during the time of the flood the earth was reshaped. RD

Holy Crap Numpty...

Explain please.

The Golden Compass Vs. The Holy Bible!
A HANDY COMPARISON TIP SHEET FOR CONCERNED CHRISTIAN PARENTS

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.



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.

It was a compliment.

What a bunch of "brainwashed" garbage. So now evolution is proved because someone thinks that we a common ancestor, yet there is no proof of the commonality of species? As I said, a hypothesis does not a fact make. Yet you are trying to force feed this diet of bull crap down everyones throat, and tell us that it is "truth lite"? Get real, come back when you have found "physical" empirical prove that ANY animal has been shown to jump across the species barrier of biogenesis. The Darwinian cultist have tried every trick in the book to make people believe they have real evidence when there is absolutely no proof other than offered by some caulk board idiot that, submits a rework of a 150 year old idea, buried and hidden behind biogenesis, and claiming such proves macroevolution. At last count we had 60 or more theories as to why, the dinosaurs became extinct, over 100 theories that try to explain the iceage, as it remains one of the hardest projects for pseudo science to explain, at last count, we now have 30 ice ages in the so called eons of earth's age. According to some of them the entire earth was covered with ice, for 5 million years, but this happens to be right in middle of where life was supposed to be evolving exponentially. When anyone just uses common sense, instead of eating this steady diet of horse crap, there are so many holes in these idiots theories, I do not see how any intelligent person could buy this crap. It does not matter how well a piece of crap comes dressed to a party it still looks and smells like crap. RD

The bible is the only scientific source in the universe that does not have to have any proof for its theories YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a bunch of "brainwashed" garbage. So now evolution is proved because someone thinks that we a common ancestor, yet there is no proof of the commonality of species? As I said, a hypothesis does not a fact make. Yet you are trying to force feed this diet of bull crap down everyones throat, and tell us that it is "truth lite"? Get real, come back when you have found "physical" empirical prove that ANY animal has been shown to jump across the species barrier of biogenesis. The Darwinian cultist have tried every trick in the book to make people believe they have real evidence when there is absolutely no proof other than offered by some caulk board idiot that, submits a rework of a 150 year old idea, buried and hidden behind biogenesis, and claiming such proves macroevolution. At last count we had 60 or more theories as to why, the dinosaurs became extinct, over 100 theories that try to explain the iceage, as it remains one of the hardest projects for pseudo science to explain, at last count, we now have 30 ice ages in the so called eons of earth's age. According to some of them the entire earth was covered with ice, for 5 million years, but this happens to be right in middle of where life was supposed to be evolving exponentially. When anyone just uses common sense, instead of eating this steady diet of horse crap, there are so many holes in these idiots theories, I do not see how any intelligent person could buy this crap. It does not matter how well a piece of crap comes dressed to a party it still looks and smells like crap. RD

What a bunch of "brainwashed" garbage. So now evolution is proved because someone thinks that we a common ancestor, yet there is no proof of the commonality of species? As I said, a hypothesis does not a fact make. Yet you are trying to force feed this diet of bull crap down everyones throat, and tell us that it is "truth lite"? Get real, come back when you have found "physical" empirical prove that ANY animal has been shown to jump across the species barrier of biogenesis.

The Darwinian cultist have tried every trick in the book to make people believe they have real evidence when there is absolutely no proof other than offered by some caulk board idiot that, submits a rework of a 150 year old idea, buried and hidden behind biogenesis, and claiming such proves macroevolution.

At last count we had 60 or more theories as to why, the dinosaurs became extinct, over 100 theories that try to explain the iceage, as it remains one of the hardest projects for pseudo science to explain, at last count, we now have 30 ice ages in the so called eons of earth's age. According to some of them the entire earth was covered with ice, for 5 million years, but this happens to be right in middle of where life was supposed to be evolving exponentially. When anyone just uses common sense, instead of eating this steady diet of horse crap, there are so many holes in these idiots theories, I do not see how any intelligent person could buy this crap. It does not matter how well a piece of crap comes dressed to a party it still looks and smells like crap. RD

it's funny that campbell and red devil will deny evolution to the tooth and nail, yet the evidence for it is so balrringly obvious.

not only are simpler fossils found deeper within earth but dating techniques with agree that the simpler fossils are generally much older, but are we to believe this is just sheer coincidence?? Why exactly are simpler animals older if creationism is true?? Fossils of certain animals are found and similar animal species are found one after the other in chronological order and the appearance of vestigal structures suggest that these fossils are related, bacterial evolution has been observed and recorded hundreds if not thousands of times and micro-evolution is the driving force of macro-evolution, not only that but the process that causes evolution to occur (natural selection) is a known fact and has also been observed in many different species, there is no explanaition from the creationists as to why natural selection cannot result in new species! And all this information is available to you even if your're not a scientist.

YouTube - Definitive Proof of Evolution

Im sorry, but it is a mistake to believe that fossils are always being found in chronological order. While rocks are found in layers, the concept of the geologic column ASSUMES that certain fossils are found only in certain layers. These fossils which are used to identify particular layers of the geological column are known as index fossils. UNFORTUNATELY, it is assumed that indext fossils represent an absolue pattern, and this concept so permeates the classification of strata that it makes it difficult to determine if the geological column is based on a real global trend. Information about fossils that can help check the reality of the trend is often lacking; such as absolute depth; since in the geologic column model that information is irrelevant.

Another problem is that all available soruces claiming that fossils are found as shown in the geologic column ASSUME that they do, yet none of them give any actual evidence that fossils are found as claimed. The use of these geologic ages is so pervasive that it makes an independent determination of fossil distribution and back checking the validity of the geologic column practically impossible. This gives the appearance that it has been proven.

The fact is that the geologic column is not found complete at any place on Earth, except in books and on web sites.

Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

The geological column, including the ages of the strata and fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

Go to Williston basin. Go to the Boneparte basin. There you will find two complete columns. Strata from all eras together.

Evidence and tests show that the index fossil concept works.

And why are you fighting this idea? It was the idea of a creationist. Faunal selection (what drives the column) was determined a long time before evolution. The man who coined the cambrian era laughed at evolution.

Who's laughing now?

Im sorry, but it is a mistake to believe that fossils are always being found in chronological order. While rocks are found in layers, the concept of the geologic column ASSUMES that certain fossils are found only in certain layers. These fossils which are used to identify particular layers of the geological column are known as index fossils. UNFORTUNATELY, it is assumed that indext fossils represent an absolue pattern, and this concept so permeates the classification of strata that it makes it difficult to determine if the geological column is based on a real global trend. Information about fossils that can help check the reality of the trend is often lacking; such as absolute depth; since in the geologic column model that information is irrelevant.

Another problem is that all available soruces claiming that fossils are found as shown in the geologic column ASSUME that they do, yet none of them give any actual evidence that fossils are found as claimed. The use of these geologic ages is so pervasive that it makes an independent determination of fossil distribution and back checking the validity of the geologic column practically impossible. This gives the appearance that it has been proven.

The fact is that the geologic column is not found complete at any place on Earth, except in books and on web sites.

Geological column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column as represented by sedimentary thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year's worth of depositions. The global 'stack' of index fossils exist nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all phanerozoic systems have been assigned. The column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted-clearly circular reasoning.

It would not matter to me if the person who invented the column was a Baptist minister. The column as some believe is hypothetical. And another problem the believers in Evolution are having with it, are those darn fossil over laps.