-90% "historical" things such as Jewish people building those tall buildings of Egypt, most of the wars that happened, and all the Jewish slaves that were supposedly there.
Even beyond that. None of that really proves the existence of a higher being. There's really no use arguing the historical accuracy of the bible in regards to stuff like that.
Even beyond that. None of that really proves the existence of a higher being. There's really no use arguing the historical accuracy of the bible in regards to stuff like that.
Yeah, but nothing really proves it false. There appears to be a lack of evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean that the thing is not true. Like there is no proof that there is a god. Is there? We don't know. There is no evidence to disprove it, only ideas. Greek philosophers believed in many gods. They were also the ones who thought up evolution. (no, Charles Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution. He popularized it.) For evolution, there are things that proves it wrong. Like the out of place links, time lines, etc.
Yeah, but nothing really proves it false. There appears to be a lack of evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean that the thing is not true. Like there is no proof that there is a god. Is there? We don't know. There is no evidence to disprove it, only ideas. Greek philosophers believed in many gods. They were also the ones who thought up evolution. (no, Charles Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution. He popularized it.) For evolution, there are things that proves it wrong. Like the out of place links, time lines, etc.
There is also nothing that proves that unicorns are false, but do you believe in them? I sincerely hope not. And do you care to give an example of these things that "roves it wrong"?
how it says rabbits chew cud (Nope, rabbits lack the ability to chew cud).
Huh? Where? I've never heard that.
Please elaborate.
I'm no big studier of evolution. But I do know that; missing links: all of the claimed links between apes and humans were actually either 100% human or ape bones. The time line issue: one end of the Grand Canyon is really old, one is really young (no source, and I'm too tired to look). Another is the carbon dating (Carbon 14, maybe?) was found in diamonds, said to be millions of years old, and thus shouldn't have any carbon-14 in it. Of course, no one would CARE to look, because everyone KNOWS that diamonds wouldn't have any of the carbon 14 in them (again, might be another carbon-#). Wait a minute. They found carbon-14 in them?!? (Again, I'm too lazy to look for sources.) I'm probably going to go to sleep now. I'll look for sources in the morning. Is that good enough for you?
I lol'd at the part where you implied that diamonds weren't made of carbon. On another note, no radioactive material simply ceases to exist, that would violate the conservation of matter principle. It simply decreases by a half in about 5700 years for Carbon 14. Nevertheless, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?
ne end of the Grand Canyon is really old, one is really young
Odds are your "biology" book is some nonsense printed by creationist idiots who wouldn't know the scientific method if it slapped them upside the head.
**** you mad. But I agree with you. He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
The reason I am made is because bible thumping morons are trying to distort science just because we are showing them the man behind the curtain does not in fact exist.
I am not huge on religion (which is to say I don't give a crap), but you can't prove beyond a doubt that God does in fact not exist.
1- Do scientists believe that the Earth, at any time, was surrounded by a large layer of ice, above the atmosphere?
I can only find creationist sites making this claim so I'm going to say no.
2- How do scientists hypothesis that dinosaurs breathed?
With lungs.
And I think he has gone insane or found some form of drugs. We will see who is correct when he comments again.
That or he was listening to a lot of Kent Hovind seminars.
TL/DR: OP has no idea what he is babbling about.
He's talking about the water canopy "theory" purported by creationists.
The claim by creationists is the water canopy (either of ice or liquid water) created a greenhouse effect on the planet by creating a physical barrier to not allow gases to escape, meaning a higher oxygen level. The flood water from Noahs Arc story was this water from the canopy. So since we no longer had this water canopy the gases escaped drastically lowering the oxygen level on the planet causing animals requiring the higher oxygen to die off.
Of course we have to ignore loads of problems such as that amount of water surrounding the earth would blot out the sun, where all that water went afterwords, and why it didn't leave a single trace of geological evidence. Not to mention we have a pretty good grasp on how the Earths environment had higher oxygen levels in the past, non of which required such a barrier surrounding the Earth.
Today the O2 levels are about 21% back when large dinosaurs were around the O2 levels were around 26-30%.
As for how this disproves evolution I have no idea.
I'm no big studier of evolution.
Would you like a few link for you to study on the subject?
But I do know that; missing links: all of the claimed links between apes and humans were actually either 100% human or ape bones.
There really isn't any significantly huge gaps in the fossil record linking humans with the rest of the primates. And we are a linage of ape.
Nebraska man was misclassified, the tooth belonged to an exctinct species of boar, not primate, the finding was corrected in 1927. Odds are your "biology" book is some nonsense printed by creationist idiots who wouldn't know the scientific method if it slapped them upside the head.
To add to this many creationists like to say who scientist reconstructed an entire person from this tooth. The truth is the drawing of Nebraska man was a speculative drawing done by the newspaper reporting the find, before it was debunked. Also weeding out frauds and mistakes isn't a failing of science but a triumph.
You can't prove that Religion is correct and Science wrong; using scientific arguments. Religion is something irrational, whereas science is systematic and rational study. The rational does not prove the irrational, like the irrational does not prove the rational. They are two different worlds. Bottom line, when you disprove a scientific theory, you do not prove the correctness of Religion. You just and only prove that a particular scientific theory is erroneous, ergo there is an other -better- scientific explanation.
