Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Under Scrutiny


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#81 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 07 November 2005 - 03:47 PM

re- lwj2op2, Nov 4 2005, 07:54 PM
WALT BROWN PT 1
Yet no fossil of a horse or it’s relatives has been found, (they won’t) so basically a D shaped print is found, and Walt Brown claims they belong to a horse, “outstanding” not very creditable is it? Yet minimal research would find a creature of the time that can leve such prints with the need to claim an out of sequence find, seel this LINK
and extracts
More of these refutations of this supposed ‘evidence’ can be found at talk origins, I think I have made the point, unless there was a specific topic you wished to  pursue amongst the list.

View Post


There was nothing I saw that said the prints could not be horse. A horse is a likely candidate for the cause of the prints. Of all I read on the subject, the basic evolutionist sentiment is: they could be horse if a horse could have been there but a horse could not have been there so they cannot be horse. A perfect companion to; it must have happened so it did.

#82 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 November 2005 - 07:55 PM

There was nothing I saw that said the prints could not be horse. A horse is a likely candidate for the cause of the prints. Of all I read on the subject, the basic evolutionist sentiment is: they could be horse if a horse could have been there but a horse could not have been there so they cannot be horse. A perfect companion to; it must have happened so it did.

View Post


Well there is good evidence to say a horse could not have made the print, i.e. it’s consistent with the fossil record.

#83 Electric_Sceptic

Electric_Sceptic

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 30 November 2005 - 03:48 AM

Evolution has never been observed, only inferred. [please don't counter with an example such as industrial melanism or sickle cell anemia... I'm talking about the kind of evolution that supposedly leads to new species.]

View Post

Evolution has been observed many, many times - and I mean speciation. If you'd like to see some examples, I suggest doing a google for 'speciation' - you'll find any number of examples.

#84 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 30 November 2005 - 09:56 AM

quote=Electric_Sceptic,Nov 30 2005, 03:48 AM

Evolution has been observed many, many times - and I mean speciation. If you'd like to see some examples, I suggest doing a google for 'speciation' - you'll find any number of examples.

Macroevolution has never been observed. If you disagree, give me an example.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users