Posted on 03/11/2019 2:51:56 PM PDT by Sopater
That statement is so stupid it invalidates the entire piece.
You do not know what a Scientific Theory is so you should probably not opine on the science.
Bingo. Well put.
100,000 years seems more viable to me. Otherwise, I'm in.
Global warming is fake, so is evolution. You might see a white rabbit gain a brown coat in a more temperate setting, but species don’t mutate into other things. The creation is in Genesis. One can read that to see where things came from. If you don’t believe in the Bible, the evidence is there to see clearly anyways.
I really don’t care because I know no one can explain the first living cells and how they came about. Discussing evolution is like discussing a Boeing 777 and not first learning about the Wright brothers inventions.
Carbon dating puts first modern humans at 300,000 years ago.
So why are species split up into separate species? Wouldn't evolution dictate a smooth transition?
Too bad the article is from an anti-Israel publication, though.
There are at least 7 or 8 examples of populations which have become different species.
Why so few? Because few scientists are interested in the question.
Vaquero -
It certainly is not a proven fact. You can’t just come on here and say Evolution is a fact and have no one challenge you.
Given the generally agreed definitions of “Evolution” in the context of article (Darwinian evolution a/k/a molecules-to-man evolution) and the generally agreed definition of “fact” there is ZERO basis for your assertion.
Now if you want to start by re-defining the essential terms in your statement, well, it’s your move.
n short, they believe that God created humans within fewer than 10,000 years.
“Carbon dating puts first modern humans at 300,000 years ago.”
And carbon dating depends on a constant carbon ratio for all those years which is clearly a guess or hope since there are so many variables that can change that ratio.
It still amazes me how many items have been carbon dated and then archeology has proved the carbon dating to be wrong and the comment is always I guess we need to re-calibrate.
To me basing life, death, and eternity on such variables seems most careless, but to each his own, God bless.
If these fossil bearing deposits can be identified with adjacent strata, then these can also be dated from rates of emplacement. If this agrees with C14, then two lines of evidence intersect, strengthening that argument.
Non-scientist here (but Ph.D). It defies logic that unimaginable complexity such as found in the “simplest” of organisms could spontaneously arise. This is the death knell of evolutionary theory.
Well said, all you flat earth folks.
Over eons there were various methods of species splitting off. Smooth and abrupt due to various catastrophic inputs like the ‘great dying’ of 250 MYA (caused by the huge Siberian lava flow) and the dinosaur killer be it a Yucatán asteroid or Deccan Traps lava flow 66 million years ago. There is also some evuidence of various evolutionary change inputs caused by radiation from gamma ray burst stars from many light years away.
Darwin had an idea. The fine tuning of which I’m wasn’t until more recently.
Scientists are wrong all the time. But the basics of evolution are as solid as can be. See 37
This is why I believe in the Genesis account of creation. It may not be true but every other theory is wrong so why not just believe Genesis? Any thing you believe about creation is at least as absurd as the Genesis account.
And also why I knew at age 5 and continue to know at age 59 that it is not true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
