Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ConsentofGoverned
but but that means the evolutionists were wrong about this rat..dang I thought evolution was well THE TRUEST THEORY OF ALL, HOW COULD THEY BE SO WRONG.

The discovery that this species did not go extinct, like the discovery of the coelcanth, doesn't actually help or hurt the theory of evolution.

Why do you think it would?

33 posted on 03/09/2006 3:05:37 PM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: Potowmack
"The discovery that this species did not go extinct, like the discovery of the coelcanth, doesn't actually help or hurt the theory of evolution."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..................
yeah, but it sure messes up their charts. LOL
39 posted on 03/09/2006 3:09:43 PM PST by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Potowmack

It's hurts evolutionist's credibility.

If evolutionists could be wrong about this. What might they also be wrong about?

Is the fossil record so sparse that this creature could survive for 11 million years without a trace? And if so, what other creatures were alive before or after their alleged dates giving by evolutionists?

Were the fossils of this creature assigned the wrong dates? Were evolutionists looking at fossils that were only a few hundred or thousand years old, and thinking because it is an extinct creature, that the fossils were much older than they are?

Was this creature used to date the strata and other fossils like like the Coelanthe was? How many other fossils are assumed to be 11 million years old because they were found in the same strata as a rat squirrel?

And did anybody ever go back and revisit the justification for dates for stata or fossils that were dated based on the Coelanthe? Does anybody even remember how many dates could be affected?

That's part of the problem that we have with the whole story that evo's keep pushing. How much of it is based on science? Is that science good or bad science? How much is based on assumptions and evolutionary bias? How much is based on false assumptions like rat skirrels being extinct?

We don't know but we suspect A LOT!!!

It's not the death knell. God showing up today with a video tape of just how he created the creatures, which ones were created unique and which ones were the result of natural selection of genetic potential in the originals, where the mistakes in our science are, and answering all of the evolutionist's objections wouldn't be the death knell of evolution.

Because tomorrow some evo is going to print a story about how mentally retarded palm walking Turkish people are proof that man evolved from apes.


50 posted on 03/09/2006 3:45:02 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Potowmack
The discovery that this species did not go extinct, like the discovery of the coelcanth, doesn't actually help or hurt the theory of evolution.

Why do you think it would?

Because creationists are, by and large, ignorant dopes.

197 posted on 03/10/2006 1:27:48 PM PST by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Potowmack

"The discovery that this species did not go extinct, like the discovery of the coelcanth, doesn't actually help or hurt the theory of evolution."

You have got to be kidding! This information (total extinction of a species ll million years ago) is being widely disseminated by evolutionists in public schools. To find that this information is erroneous doesn't affect the theory of evolution??


206 posted on 03/10/2006 3:20:32 PM PST by Reddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson