Jump to content


Photo

Proving Prints In Paluxy River Are Frauds.


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#161 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 November 2009 - 11:43 AM

When I say that an evolutionist lies when they say "science tries to falsify a theory" (in the context of evolution) or "if someone could falsify evolution they would be famous" is because an evolutionist *should* know that the Paluxy tracks are ripe for study (although the possibility remains that evolution may have to be revised... again).

And who's stopping that?

Instead of the ICR doing their research in the court, to find a loophole to teach their religion as science, they can do it.

Yes, it is true that if the Paluxy Tracks had any value they'd be swarmed over. They are not, not even by Satari and the other "geologists". Why is that? Honestly it is that the tracks are frauds or tracks of dinosaurs with dinosaurs.

You may have convinced yourself that there really isn't much interesting at Paluxy in regards to human tracks, so you aren't technically lying. However, since you *should* know there is something that should be studied at Paluxy if the two statements I quoted above are true, you are negligent at the very least.

And that means YEC geologists are lacking in being able to put their own research paper together and doing research there!

Some YECs say Paluxy is real. There is no evidence but again it is not for those who think Santa is real and that the Navy has shown land at the North Pole. It is for those who make the claim to research it and publish it. Anything else shows the emptiness of those YECs who claim human tracks.

As to creationists having any good points: consistently flat geological layers, copying DNA should degrade messages and not make new coherent ones, and Haldane's dilemma are just a few of the very serious problems that you just showed you are ignoring. Good luck with your theory if you are going to keep an attitude like that!

Things YECs have never done:

Produce evidence that supports their idea (I will not even call it a hypothesis as YEC "science" makes no predictions) as science.

So how does one measure information in the genome again? Which organism has "more information", a species with 23 pairs or one that have 39 pairs?

#162 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 11 November 2009 - 07:38 AM

And who's stopping that?

Instead of the ICR doing their research in the court, to find a loophole to teach their religion as science, they can do it.

Yes, it is true that if the Paluxy Tracks had any value they'd be swarmed over.  They are not, not even by Satari and the other "geologists".  Why is that?  Honestly it is that the tracks are frauds or tracks of dinosaurs with dinosaurs.

ICR and other creationist groups are barred from digging in a place like Paluxy because of discrimination on the part of officials that could grant access, and by resources that can only be used to study so much. As the paper they released said they would love to go down and finish the research.

And that means YEC geologists are lacking in being able to put their own research paper together and doing research there!

Some YECs say Paluxy is real.  There is no evidence but again it is not for those who think Santa is real and that the Navy has shown land at the North Pole.  It is for those who make the claim to research it and publish it.  Anything else shows the emptiness of those YECs who claim human tracks.

The evidence that there is something worth looking into is overwhelming. However, evolutionists cannot even bear the thought that there might be something worth looking into.

Things YECs have never done:

Produce evidence that supports their idea (I will not even call it a hypothesis as YEC "science" makes no predictions) as science.

Then feel free not to look into the idea. However, at least show some scientific sense and acknowledge that evolution has serious problems and the YEC's that bring them up are making good points.

So how does one measure information in the genome again?

Shannon information.

Which organism has "more information", a species with 23 pairs or one that have 39 pairs?

View Post

Are you trying to make a joke? Have you ever heard of Shannon information?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)