The current LIVING structure of the Great Barrier Reef is 6-8.000 years old, it's so sad that every ignorant thing you say could've been prevented with a 10 second search.
Another(!!!!) example of a totally ignored FACT. Just like the formation of stalacmites/-tites are still told to take thousands of years. Science has disproven both statements utterly completely, but they are still used to proove evolution by LYING about it in the textbooks. Wake up, people! Why does science need to resort to those lies if evolution is a proven fact? Scientists should be ashamed of what science has become. How can one be objective if things MUST be explained without God?
@TheScienceFoundation I was talking about textbooks my friend. Not talkorigins. Textbooks are full of these very old scientific errors. In your youth you got sucked in by these falsehoods. If you really have science as your foundation, try to stick to what science can know/proove: adaptation. Stop selling assumptions as facts. When there are other possibilities to consider, consider them. Be objective. Be a scientist!
@TheScienceFoundation No, it doesn't. It gives an explanation you accept without questioning. You assume there never was a global flood. I believe there was. One of us is wrong.
@Lenestia The potholer-vid and Don... (yawn-sigh) Assumptions based on assumptions. I like the cheetah-vid though. It gives a huge case for the sensitivity of the gene-code, which is a major problem for evolution.
@EdjeBos No, they're facts based on facts. It's a fact that a bottleneck in a population reduces genetic variability, and it's a fact that we dont' find it across a significant number, let alone most species.
It's also a fact that detritus being sorted by water will settle according to their hydrodynamic principles, and it's a fact that we don't see that in the strata collectively.
@TheScienceFoundation That fact alone isn´t evidence for evolution. In fact, the limitations on genetic variability due to the ingenious MECHANISM that protects the dna-code, are evidence against it.
For me the Hovind-theory gives a reasonable account for the mechanisms of the Flood. It explains the formation of the layers and strata. The entire evolution-theory is based upon a non-existing, completely fabricated geological timescale. It´s made up.
@jeffblue101 Really? What's wrong with creationwiki? The disparity between the two sources is ridiculous. You've done the equivalent of saying "That wikipedia article about Barack Obama is outdated. Here's a more recent article on conservapedia."
Their "figures" aren't based on science, but a "world view". They were also shocked and flabbergasted when they saw how fast island's destroyed by volcanoes recovered life. Completely barren of life after a volcano. In only 40-50 yrs. they were completely restored. Including forest. "Krakatoa" is a prime example (case study). No billions of years necessary!
The current LIVING structure of the Great Barrier Reef is 6-8.000 years old, it's so sad that every ignorant thing you say could've been prevented with a 10 second search.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
5.4 billion years, ouch!
sownzgr8 9 months ago
Another(!!!!) example of a totally ignored FACT. Just like the formation of stalacmites/-tites are still told to take thousands of years. Science has disproven both statements utterly completely, but they are still used to proove evolution by LYING about it in the textbooks. Wake up, people! Why does science need to resort to those lies if evolution is a proven fact? Scientists should be ashamed of what science has become. How can one be objective if things MUST be explained without God?
EdjeBos 9 months ago
@EdjeBos talkorigins(.)org/indexcc/CD/CD250.html
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I was talking about textbooks my friend. Not talkorigins. Textbooks are full of these very old scientific errors. In your youth you got sucked in by these falsehoods. If you really have science as your foundation, try to stick to what science can know/proove: adaptation. Stop selling assumptions as facts. When there are other possibilities to consider, consider them. Be objective. Be a scientist!
EdjeBos 9 months ago
@EdjeBos Yeah and the talkorigins article explains why you're wrong.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago 3
@TheScienceFoundation No, it doesn't. It gives an explanation you accept without questioning. You assume there never was a global flood. I believe there was. One of us is wrong.
EdjeBos 9 months ago
@EdjeBos No, it explains that the stalactites you're referring to which form quickly are completely different than calcium carbonate stalactites.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago 3
Comment removed
Lenestia 9 months ago
@Lenestia The potholer-vid and Don... (yawn-sigh) Assumptions based on assumptions. I like the cheetah-vid though. It gives a huge case for the sensitivity of the gene-code, which is a major problem for evolution.
EdjeBos 9 months ago
@EdjeBos No, they're facts based on facts. It's a fact that a bottleneck in a population reduces genetic variability, and it's a fact that we dont' find it across a significant number, let alone most species.
It's also a fact that detritus being sorted by water will settle according to their hydrodynamic principles, and it's a fact that we don't see that in the strata collectively.
TheScienceFoundation 9 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation That fact alone isn´t evidence for evolution. In fact, the limitations on genetic variability due to the ingenious MECHANISM that protects the dna-code, are evidence against it.
For me the Hovind-theory gives a reasonable account for the mechanisms of the Flood. It explains the formation of the layers and strata. The entire evolution-theory is based upon a non-existing, completely fabricated geological timescale. It´s made up.
EdjeBos 9 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
talkorgins is outdated on this subject.
creationwiki(.)org/Stalactites_can_grow_very_rapidly
jeffblue101 9 months ago
@jeffblue101 creationwiki(.)org? you have got to be joking.
ceddan 9 months ago
@ceddan
whats wrong with creation wiki? did you even read the article?
jeffblue101 9 months ago
@jeffblue101 Really? What's wrong with creationwiki? The disparity between the two sources is ridiculous. You've done the equivalent of saying "That wikipedia article about Barack Obama is outdated. Here's a more recent article on conservapedia."
ceddan 9 months ago
@jeffblue101 ah hell, i've been trolled
ceddan 9 months ago
obscure argument concerning stalactites therefore the god of abraham. yep.
ceddan 9 months ago
Their "figures" aren't based on science, but a "world view". They were also shocked and flabbergasted when they saw how fast island's destroyed by volcanoes recovered life. Completely barren of life after a volcano. In only 40-50 yrs. they were completely restored. Including forest. "Krakatoa" is a prime example (case study). No billions of years necessary!
Howie47 9 months ago