First off I am a man. 2. It is one of the most indicators. 3. DNA is not real time. 4. You say it substantiates evolution, but you do not say how. 5. What need does the bible (a book dealing with those thing that are spiritual) need to tell us about DNA for? It has no need to tell us. It is not a science book. You evolutionists say that it takes 10s of thousands of years to petrify something. Why was a Crayola crayon dating back to 1953 or 1954 found just 5 or 6 years ago?
It does not fail 1 bit! Name me a reason the bible has to predict that stuff! It is not a science book. Does it have to predict it because you said it had to? No! The bible has no need for that stuff to be known. Is there anything wrong with it? No. Get over the fact that it does not predict it. I don't argue with someone who doesn't even consider the other side.
What made god? PLEASE EXPLAIN! Where in the hell did god come from. Who produced such an entity, that is benevolent, yet insipid and cruel by our simple standards?
I'd tell you but. as I stated up there. I don't argue with someone who doesn't even consider the other side.
The bible has no need for that stuff to be known. Haha, then shut the fuck up. You claim no need to reason, so give it up, you cannot make reason. In fact, god makes no sense, and is a trend. Zeus, anyone? That is the likeness on the ceiling of the sistine chapel. Yeah, what heresay. Fuck you, god, see what I mean? You better come up with something special, and not relliant on logic, to claim the existence of some sort of 'magic man in the sky'. Time to grow up. At least I have tangible evidence for Santa Claus. You are bereft of evidence.
I didn't challenged the trees age. I challenged the logic in that statement, I also provided you a method which you can use in order to build tree ring data which can track the earths age further back than 10000 years. Leading species? I thought they harbored all species, since the evolution is a slow progress and requires a million years in order to produce new subspecies. It's simply impossible. Not because I understand what you mean, but hey while speak about the ice age, here's another evidence that world is older than 10.000 years.. You're kidding, right?
#144 Today, 9:50 am integrity Recent Blog: Real Life Forensics Raider Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Right Behind You... Posts: 390 Quote: Originally Posted by mikmik What made god? PLEASE EXPLAIN! Where in the hell did god come from. Who produced such an entity, that is benevolent, yet insipid and cruel by our simple standards? I'd tell you but. But what? What is your problem? I destroy all arguments you make. Then what? I told you, there is no logic behind your sad fantasies.
Quote: Originally Posted by mikmik There is no evidence for evolution. You're kidding, right? Huh? Now you lie? What is your problem? You are blatant in your insipidy.
You don't prove anything I say wrong! You tell me your right and say "Shut the f--- up you Loser!!!" over and over again. You have not been telling me why my reasons are wrong.
3. DNA is not real time. 4. You say it substantiates evolution, but you do not say how. Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! To bad for you, then. Do you dare me to say how? Shall I refute you to your face? Hahaha, so easy. We'll start with Watson and Crick - 1953. Nobel prize. What did they recieve the Nobel prize in Medicine for? Double helix ring any bells:? You want to make a fool of yourself? Lets do it....
You have not been telling me why my reasons are wrong. Fine, but you present no reasons This is not logic: I'd tell you but. as I stated up there. I don't argue with someone who doesn't even consider the other side. Okay, you asked for it: You said this" Leading species? I thought they harbored all species, since the evolution is a slow progress and requires a million years in order to produce new subspecies. It's simply impossible." What is impossible? Your understanding of mutation? You say "impossible", but you give no reasons. Go ahead, you said it, you back it up! How is it impossible?
It is later questioned. I guess anything that is questioned is dubious. Like the earth is a sphere. That has beern questioned. So, let's get this straight, you provide a link to research, peer reviewed, hopefully in the New england journaL, OR NEW sCIENTIST, OR bIOLOGICAL REVIEW (IN ENGLISH) in which DNA is reported to be indistinct from biological ties, and furthermore, that disputes fossil genealogy. Get to it, huh?
Yeah, you meN THIS: Evolution of the horse Further information: Evolution of the horse Evolution of the horse showing reconstruction of the fossil species obtained from successive rock strata. The foot diagrams are all front views of the left forefoot. The third metacarpal is shaded throughout. The teeth are shown in longitudinal section.Due to an almost-complete fossil record found in North American sedimentary deposits from the early Eocene to the present, the horse provides one of the best examples of evolutionary history (phylogeny).
Responding to latehorn's post. The WIkipedia quote is just a theory. There is no proof towards it actual happening.