Dialogue Of The Evolution Myth.

Dialogue showing the foolishness of evolution, debunking the evolution myth, and proving Creation.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• xtranormal
• Truth
• Bible
• Gospel
• Lord
• God
• Jesus
• Evolution
• Myth
• Science
• Propaganda
• Debunked
• Funny
• Comedy
• Entertainment.

[raffoul87]

A planet is formed by the remnants of its sun, slowly pulling towards each other by their gravitational pull, thus forming the planet. A Goldie Lock zone planet (such as the Earth), which is pretty close to the sun, needs much, much more than 6000 years to cool off the original heat and the dense atmosphere on its surface so that life could take place. With your estimations, I have to be sitting in a 450 degree C room wondering about Creation

[Jesusisthetruevine]

All this is theoretical, it has never been observed, nor proven. I am sure you know Boyle's gas law. The size of the sun limits the age of the solar system. The sun is shrinking, and the further you go back, the larger it was. Same with the magnetic filed of the earth. The magnetism would be too strong for life to exist millions of years ago. Ganymede still has a molten core, it should have cooled solid long ago, if the universe was old(Denver post, Dec 13, 1996. Holt Earth Science 1994, p 579.)

[raffoul87]

The manner by which life originated and developed on Earth is a matter of some debate for us. Scientists believed it required a long, slow process of natural genetic change called Evolution. As evidence, they pointed to every bit of relevant data ever gathered. Many others rejected the notion that man descended from monkeys as distasteful, believing instead that life - and the cosmos itself - was created by one or more gods. As evidence, they pointed to themselves believing it.

[Jesusisthetruevine]

You are correct, It is very much debated. Have you heard of Robert Gentry? His polonium halo results can be seen at halos(dot)com. The granites formed rapidly, thus proving that geologic events and formations did not take long to occur, and occurred recently. However, the "data" you speak of for evolution, has too many assumptions involved. ie. carbon dating, the geologic column, etc. Most of it has been invalidated. You should visit the halos page, friend. See you.

[richevans10000]

This is just a collection of half truths and lies.

Why are you so intent in ignoring the mountain of evidence for evolution, the big bang and quite frankly anything scientific? And worst of all, why are you so intent on trying to convince other people to ignore it?

You have the right to 'believe' whatever you want, but please stop polluting other peoples minds with this drivel, its just not fair.

[Wavicle]

@Jesusisthetruevine Scientists did refute the halo evidence: "He [Gentry] is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth."

[Jesusisthetruevine]

lol!! You are funny.

Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"

People today are not as clever as they think...

May God lead you into the truth, Good day.

[mattkin123]

@Jesusisthetruevine Your a bloody embarrassment to mankind. you make me ashamed to call my self a homo sapien.

[Jesusisthetruevine]

Your "analysis" is wrong. Gentry collected granites from all over the world, and still stands unrefuted by the scientific community. It has been probably 50 years now, so no one has refuted it. I suggest you visit the page on halos... halos(dot)com/faq-replies/chal­lenge-to-nas.htm

Gentry is up for public debate, evolutionists could have refuted it, if they could. Their failure exposes their theory debunked.

Also, there are many reports on the halos evidence... halos(dot)com/reports/index.ht­m

[mattkin123]

@Jesusisthetruevine Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be evolved by uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a halo. This is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos.

Ps. I cant believe that Gentry has the audacity to call him self a scientist.

[Jesusisthetruevine]

Scientists could not, and will never refute the halo evidence. You are mistaken. I have seen that quote before. People on talk origins are persuaded by their own philosophies, and not the evidence. Gentry's work has passed years of scrutiny, and no scientist has ever disproven them. I suggest you read some reports at :

halos(dot)com/reports/index.ht­m

Besides, If what your saying is true, scientists would create granite with halos in the lab. This cannot be done, numerous attempts failed.