If you believe in Evolution YOU are a big Mistake

Gonna quote bullshit at me and not read it first? Well,

Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.

[And I'm not even mentioning all the other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record -- developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.]

Truly persistent and/or desperate creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed "lack" of "transitional forms". It's sad. To me, the horse fossils tell a magnificent and fascinating story, of millions of animals living out their lives, in their natural world, through millions of years.

-Kathleen Hunt

Also, a far better scientifically-supported article that says you're full of shit:
[link to www.talkorigins.org]

The entire fossil record is a result of the global flood circa 2345 BC as recorded in the Bible.

Polystrate fossils discredits the claims about millions of years based on the geocolumn.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Were the fossil in fact millions of years old they would eroded away long ago along with the entire continent. Erosion dating is reliable observed and lab testable.

Radioactive ‘dating’ failure
Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years

Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996—two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow.

The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating—first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow. To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.

The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1. The ‘ages’ range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ‘ages’ of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ‘ages’ of millions of years.
[link to creation.com]

Eroding ages
Dr Tasman Bruce Walker
Creationist Mechanical Engineer and Geologist

[link to creation.com]

Is that Lamarck or Darwin genetics?


Genetics: no friend of evolution
A highly qualified biologist tells it like it is.
by Lane Lester

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.
[link to creation.com]

Your article was written by a no-name part time high school teacher who writes 150-page "books", has contributed nothing noteworthy to science, has recieved no rewards, doesn't have a PhD...

You dare throw this quack up to me?

More about your author- "The book Our origin? Has been strongly criticized by the biological, physical, astronomical, paleontological and geological technical expertise, which has led to heated debate in articles and on the web, and in 2001 appointed Society Science and Popular Education Molén the year förvillare the grounds that he "denies evolution based on pseudo-scientific reasoning"

The man's an idiot.

"Another point where Molens opinions quite different from science is that he believes that all dinosaurs were peaceful vegetarians, gathered demanding with people. He states that the Tyrannosaurus Rex teeth are perfectly adapted to shave off leaves from trees. fossilized dinosaur dung of carnivorous dinosaurs have been found many times."

So shit on your link, it's bunk. It was written by a fool that even other creationists find hard to believe.

Don't try to argue with Evolutionists with evidence and facts, they'll just go into a hissyfit calling us crazy hillbilly Bible-thumpers.

Pfft, they still can't explain why dinosaurs, that are SUPPOSEDLY hundreds of millions years old, have been discovered with soft tissue.

That's a preposterously long, unimaginable length of time for soft tissue to remain intact.

Oh, so you DO trust erosion dating, but say everything is less than 5000 years old? There's no such thing as "erosion dating". Did you mean "Surface Exposure Dating"? 'Cause that's been used to date rocks as old as 30 Million Years.

Even carbon dating, which you creationists like to poke holes in, is totally accurate to 40,000 years based on the carbon half-life of 5730 years.

They've even used tree rings to find living trees older than 11,000 years. Or do you believe God puts extra rings in bark when you're not looking?

So, where the fuck is your evidence saying the world is less than 10,000 years old?

The Bible? Is that it? I could find a book that says your mother was a peach cobbler if I looked hard enough. I do believe the burden of proof is now on you.

Who wrote an article at the link is of little importance. It only gives a longer explanation of what I already wrote. The argument remains unrefuted! The various horse breeds in the fossil record are only extinct breeds. Today, if we were to bury the small dog up to the large dog 'science' would be claiming it was evolution! Horses - same thing.


You have a belief in evolution. The geocolumn and fossil record are washed up!

Ah geez, 11,000 year old trees, you make a vast amount of assumptions,(1) that tree rings are and always have been annual (absolutely false, just have to look at tropical trees) (2) climate has been basically the same for thousands of years (again, an almost certainly false assumption - umm Ice Age anyone?) (3) the axis of the earth has remained constant over long periods of time, kind of related to climate(4) other possible things like disease, parasites and environmental conditions don't affect tree rings., etc., etc.,

But isn't it remarkable, that all the oldest known trees based on tree ring, one of the more reliable measure of time, some species which grow indefinitely, match up roughly to the approximately 7000 year history of the Earth as supposedly put forth by the Bible?

Anyhoo, I thought this was discussion about Evolution, not Creationism.

Can definitely say I'm a Catastrophist (its the most general and easily defensible position). Can't say I'm a literal Creationist, certainly wary of the rich mythology of Evolution. Ultimately would say I'm more of a deep Skeptic, where I'm skeptical even about the assumptions skeptics make - I often find them the most absurd in their reasoning :) Kind of a Mysterian philosphical bent.

Sigh, you do realize that Geologists, not to long ago (50 years or so), swore over Gradualism and attacked Catastrophism because it seemed to Biblical. Now almost all Geologists are Catastrophists.

Let's see it, this rock you believe is 30 bazzillion years old?



No they have not. The oldest tree is the "Methuselah" at 4,767 years.

[link to www.sonic.net]

Agreed OP

No, the argument does not remain unrefuted because it never refuted mine in the first place.

If you dug up a bunch of dogs, and they each demonstrated a gradual physical change, in steps, in line with the age of the remains, you'd be an idiot to call it anything but evolution.

The horse example stretches over millions of years. Evolution branches outwards to fill avaliable niches. Of course some of those species existed at the same time. Every member of a species doesn't collectively evolve at the same time. If you think evolution proposes this, you do not even understand what you're arguing against.

You and your article haven't presented a single point to disprove evolution.

Furthermore, I'm waiting for you to prove that the world is less than 10,000 years old. I'm waiting for you to prove that all fossils are from the great flood, and not from anywhere up to millions of years old like all science demonstrates. You can argue that things get sketchy in terms of precision when you go back millions of years, but every method of dating we have avaliable proves the Bible is bullshit in that respect.

Don't look now, 80,000 year old tree: [link to en.wikipedia.org]

13,000 year old tree colony: [link to en.wikipedia.org]

A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

I don't have to prove anything is millions of years old. To refute you stupid fundamental creationists, I only have to prove that the world is more than 10,000 years old.

Here's your tree:
11,000 year old trees in Germany and Ireland- [link to www.arts.cornell.edu]

And here is a whole list of things that prove the earth is older than 10,000 years, thus disproving fundamental creationism:
[link to rationalwiki.org]

Jeez dude get over with the horses already. Its a picture of four mammals alleged to show the gradual evolution of the horse. LOL.

I feel like writing a new wikipedia article titled: "The Evolution of Primodial Ooze to Man". And then show a picture of:

1) Some self replicating protein - or maybe a virus or single celled organism. Who knows what life originally looked like. Evolutionists certainly don't
2) A fossil of some dead fish, clearly demonstrating the transition from ooze to man
3) A picture of a man

Voila! Proof of Evolution you can see with your own eyes!

Evolution makes the heart hard. It is satanism without the satan. Survival of the fittest is the basis of satanism. Self service.

The first link was supposed to just be a picture, you retard. The third link, two lines away, was the full article.
[link to en.wikipedia.org] in case you missed it.

It's like you picked up a book, looked at the cover, and wondered where all the damn words are at.

And hows that proof that the earth is less than 10000 years old coming along?

Anything?

Didn't think so.

Another well-documented example of evolution:

The Peppered Moth

Before the Industrial Revolution, these moths were bright white in color. After the massive increase in soot started to kill off the white lichen they rest on, as well as turn everything else black. They were nearly wiped out by predators for being so visible, but the rarer dark colored ones were better able to survive and breed.

The dark colored moths had their genetic mutation favored, and thus took over the entire population.

"As a result, over the course of many generations of moths, the allele frequency gradually shifted towards the dominant allele, as more and more dark-bodied moths survived to reproduce. By the mid-19th century, the number of dark-coloured moths had risen noticeably, and by 1895, the percentage of dark-coloured moths in the Manchester peppered moth population was reported at 98%, a dramatic change (by almost 1000%) from the original frequency."

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Another creature that we observed evolving. This is what science defines as evolution. If you still do not believe in evolution, you had better be able to prove this moth was pulled out of someone's ass one day, otherwise you're denying reality.

MORE EVOLUTION PROOF-

Scientists reverse-engineer 500 million year old gene that controlled facial movements, use it to restore facial movement to lab mouse:

Don't even bother arguing with these creationist nut-jobs. They're either delusional or in denial, either way you're never gonna bring them into reality.

Maybe not, but I can keep them from spreading ignorance to others like a cancer.

I still the same four mammals.

This same old fucking bullshit propaganda from grammar school? A white moth "evolving" into a black moth?????

They don't teach evolution in grammar school, especially not where you live. You can't refute it either, so kiss my ass.

More proof of evolution: Crash Course Biology #20

Too lazy or illitarate to read? Here.


Go ahead and try to explain whales having legs in the context of the Bible for me, churchy.

I don't know, maybe the same reason seals do.

^ First true thing you've said all night. How many whales you see hanging out on dry land these days?

facepalm.jpg

Meh I thought seals used their rear flippers to propel or steer themselves in water. I guess your "whale" didn't do the same thing, and you somehow have proof of this. Do you like have a video of that? Would be fascinated how you came to your conclusion.

I guess you are not a biologist.