[quote=gallo;487386]Yeah. It goes on and on. Creationist after creationist joins the fray to be embarrassed by lack of knowledge and scoot away.
You misstate. They were shown to be modern artifacts carved by modern men because they could sell them to the ignorant.
That's true. Even though Ica Stones have been shown conclusively to be a hoax, creationists will still believe what they read on such sites as navyrkh accepts without thinking.
Once formed, limestone does not become soft again and accept other impressions. Therefore, if there were actually real human footprints in the Paluxy river bed, they would have been contemporaneous. It is not possible that they were separated by 65 million years. The claims of human footprints in the Paluxy are a hoax. For example, anyone with a brain can see that the Burdick print isn't human, giant or otherwise. It doesn't look human. Add to that the fact the it was carved on the bottom of the slab.
[quote]A lot of knowledgable people join in our debate and frankly, I lost. Gallo won. And those debates are still located somewhere here at Volconvo, it is a shame he must continue to re-hash the same-o same-o rebuttles.[quote]Well, thanks for that. You didn't admit it at the time. But it isn't a matter of win or lose but rather a matter of the ascendancy of science over religious clap-trap.
I can't say.
Again?
Really? I've never seen that claim made by creationists. If they are not making that claim, then it seems that they may be learning something. Except that life forms are not
sometimes dependant on each other, they are always dependant on each other. Do you not eat other life forms?
I do. But I fail to understand your point. How is that relevant to this discussion?
Actually, it does not. And I thought you had made some progress.
So, are you claiming that all flowers depend on pollination by bees? Empirically false. Bats, birds, other insects, and the wind also are responsible for pollination of various plants.
In fact, we do. Please check your facts. The first angiosperms appear in the fossil record about 125 million years ago. The oldest bee fossil is an amber preserved specimen from about 100 million years ago.
I'm not sure of what point you were trying to make, but you are wrong. Check your facts.
[quote]no evidence of a slow and progressive transformation as recorded in fosil evidence. (correct me if I am wrong).
Quote:
OK. You are wrong, as I have already pointed out. In fact, fossil evidence indicates that wasps, bees, and ants are closely related. Guess what genetic evidence shows.
Well, if you think of several million years as sudden, then you are correct.
|
Okay, you won that round, they will have to take that chapter out of the Creationist handbook. But there is more.
I am not sure a Creationist would accept "that it must be a hoax because science knows that humans did not exsist then" concerning their footprint evidence. Just like science might not like it if their evidence was called a hoax. We live in an age of technology, would it not be possible to carve a fosil that supports the theory of evolution also? Can you tell the difference between an orginal and a fake?
Is it possible to detect if a caved rock, or pottery for that matter, was made today or was made 100 years ago?