I disagree, I think it's clear evidence of a missing link between Yogi Bear and Winnie the Pooh.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Petrified Teddy Bear
This site is selling a "fossilized" teddy bear. Apparently this proves that objects can fossilize very quickly:
I disagree, I think it's clear evidence of a missing link between Yogi Bear and Winnie the Pooh.
I disagree, I think it's clear evidence of a missing link between Yogi Bear and Winnie the Pooh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
I dissent. I think this blog is clear evidence that you can't spell "evolutionist" without "insolent".
"I dissent. I think this blog is clear evidence that you can't spell "evolutionist" without "insolent"."
Lets get one thing clear shall we cretinist? The only ones being insolent, as well as stupidly arrogant, are the dumbfucks that know nothing of science, and are trying to tell us all that their favourite dingbat ancient fairytales are true. And that the huge weight of empirical data gathered by hardworking scientists is false.
CRETINIST is a very apt term for your sort. I also like to call you lot CREDOPHILES.
Shadowjack
Proof right there that Creationists are retards.
how is that proof that Creationists are wrong. It actually proves them right. It proves that the world could be a few thousand years old, as opposed to millions. If a teddy bear can be fossilized in so little time, why not dinosaurs??? Answer that...
This is through laboratory conditions which are not likely to occur in nature natural petrification as it is takes far longer.
Quite frankly, I think both sides are equally intelligent. The difference is that one side arrived by intelligent design, the other with a bang. One believes in ever-changing 'proof'--where present 'proof' defies past 'proof'--and the other is faith in a 'Holy Book'. One eliminates God, the other worships Him. One fights against this 'God' that doesn't exist, the other finds comfort in reaching out to Him in every situation.
From a scientific perspective: Mutations I get. Natural selection I get--animals dropping DNA for survival in various climates. But adding new DNA to evolve into an entirely different creature... Really? That begs the question: how long will it take before we all turn back into apes?
Furthermore if God isn't real, why spend so much time trying to prove it? Isn't that a bit like air-boxing? And if He isn't real, what the hell does it matter how we got here? Our origin means nothing if there's no God to hold us accountable.
And if He is real....
These are mass produced at Mother Shipton's Cave in York, UK. It's a fountain with highly mineralized water.
Creationists are wrong because science has ALL the evidence. Unfortunately you cretinists are too busy fantasizing about your magic sky fairy to read about nuclear decay of isotopes, and when a few of you are curious you go to a cretinist website for your "science". And they tell you that all of physics is wrong and that anyone that does not believe in a magic sky fairy can't be a good scientist.
Having a discussion with a cretinist is like trying to discuss with a flat earther that the planet is round. A waste of time. Because their imagination trumps any real scientific evidence time after time. Cretinists need their imaginary sky fairy to get through the day. Its like a favourite teddy bear for a kid.
This seems like a bunch of name calling from both sides. Anyone who says science has all the answers is just misinformed, the mechanism for evolution is still in doubt, I can provide quotes from reputable scientists like George Gaylord Simpson & Colin Paterson clarifying that science has very few answers on this subject, if any, if you listen to Paterson.
Anyone who believes that rapid petrification happens only in laboratories, is also misinformed, the teddy's of Yorkshire are done in a river, the Limestone Cowboy boot was formed under natural conditions. You can say it takes millions of years for things to petrify, but you wouldn't be basing this on fact, since the evidence doesn't support such a proposal. This said, rapid petrification doesn't actually prove that creationists are right, just that people who believe that petrification takes millions of years are wrong.
Nuclear dating is only valid to people who don't understand the basic assumptions which are made about it, one being that when rock is formed it has only the parent isotope. This is not the case, volcanic rocks recently solidified contain both parent and product isotopes. Another assumption is that the substances that are in the rock stay there, and that no others contaminate the sample. water makes minerals leach through soil and rock, which is pourous. This is a fact, so there is no certainty that there are any uncontaminated samples.
Evolution isn't science, since it lies in the realm of speculation, likewise, creation lies in the realm of speculation. Anything that can't be observed or tested isn't science. So, by hiding behind blind faith or millions of years, both these points can't be tested, and are thus unscientific.
The number of circular arguments behind evolution, especially natural selection would invalidate it as logical. The fittest survive because they are the fittest, & the survivors are the fittest because they survive. Besides which the most compelling argument is genetics, which would require a longer explanation as to why it is not logical, but it affirms the consequent.
Geology doesn't prove evolution, I could give you reasons, but I'll fall back on Colin Paterson, who curated the fossil collection at the American Museum for Natural History for many years, who refers to evolution as conveying "anti-knowledge."
Whoever is the author of this blog, bear in mind that the evolution of the teddy bear argument is not based in a valid type of academic thinking. In fact, by making fun of the argument, you invalidate your own argument on the grounds that it is an ad hominum argument. Unfortunately, many of the other arguments on this page, from both sides, fall into the same trap. In future, try to stick to. Actual facts, & leave the mudslinging at home. It's a rela pity that you have named your blog creationist idiocy, yet you couldn't come up with an intelligent argument.
Okay. It's not when it fossilizes, which can happen relatively quickly (a couple decades to a century) it's the radioactive and relative dating used by scientists, which proves that they are older than that. The rate of fossilization is irrelevant.
Okay, so I think everybody needs do some reading. This is a 'concretion', not a fossil. There is a HUGE difference. This is nothing new to geology! This in no way proves that dinosaurs can fossilize quickly. Dinosaur fossils are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Please, please do some reading. :)
top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]uk online casino[/url] coincide the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]online casinos[/url] manumitted no store perk at the foremost [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]online casino
[/url].
it's impressive the way we fight against an Intelligent Mind behind us all idea, so that we can do whatever we want. We are our own gods, isnt it? =}
If you fellas have a minute, check this out:
http://youtu.be/1gv2xbXkAfs
All the brainwashed atheists are out in numbers again.
What a surprise huh? Nope.
Atheists are the most arrogant, ignorant, ill reasoning blowhards on earth.
Quite obvious just from this thread.
Creatards creatins blah blah
Oh wow, so original the way you foolish atheists copy/paste each other all day long without ever saying anything worth reading.
I like the terms atheitards, Darwinits, Darweeners, Darwhiners, atheopaths, etc etc. and, ah yes, equus asinus.
Name calling atheists are all the proof the world needs of how stupid atheism really is.
You love to give it out, but none of you can take it.
Just look at how angry and insulted you tools felt when reading my terms for stupid modern atheidolts.
Atheism: Groundless, untenable, unsupported by any evidence at all, anti-science, retarded, stupid, self-contradicting and loaded with logical absurdities from start to end.
That's what internet wannabe expert atheists are - they know nothing at all - either of science, logic or rationality.
You atheists are so incredibly dim, dumb and dimwitted that you still can't figure out that, under atheism, you're nothing but a "bag of meat". Or, to quote another atheist guru, "you're nothing but a pack of neurons"
Bags of meat have no rationality; so why the hell should I give a damn what all these atheist meat bags are "saying"?
No reason, certainly no rational reason.
A pack of neurons is not reasonable, rational or intelligent; but that's all you dumb atheists are in your own atheist fogma!!! (from the greek Fog and Dogma) lol
Severely brainwashed is what all you "new atheists" really are. In dire need of de-programing.
Your world view sucks.
Atheism is empty inanities flowing from animated dead bags of meat. Yet all these little meat bags think they are rational. ROTFLMAO!!
Hint: if atheism is true and you're nothing but bags of meat, then why should any other bag of meat give a crap what your atoms are doing, versus what the atoms in rocks are doing? No reason at all.
Bags of meat, however animated, cannot be rational or logical. But that's what you are according your own position!!
And sorry, you cannot test the reality reliability of the brain, using the brain.
This is not hard.
The greatest scientists in history were almost all creationists Newton, Leibniz, Maxwell, Faraday, Pascal, Boyle, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Godel, Townes, Marconi, von Braun, Bacon.
Einstein believed in God you fools!
These so-called "creatards" founded the scientific method, discovered everything you dolts take for granted every day of you purposeless miserable little vain lives.
So go ahead you abysmal idiots, call all these real scientists creatards, creatins ...
PLEASE!!! Write it everywhere across the web, write out your glaringly insane ideas everywhere so that all can see just how stupid you mindless rampallian buffoons really are.
Start your own blogs with a real honest presentation of your asinine "creatards" etc.
Applied of course, clearly and in nice big letters to all the above mentioned creationist names; as well as a long list of creationist Nobel Laureates.
You tools make truly intelligent people sick to their stomachs.
Even Voltaire had you bozos pegged when he wrote,
"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to ..." -Philosophical Dictionary
He was right on that at least.
Now lets demolish the dumb atheists Origins Myth, neo-Darwinisme:
This should really make you day atheopaths.
Your beloved creation myth Darwinism is over and out.
Even as many high level evolutionists state.
I'll bet none of you twits have ever heard of Eugene Koonin and a few hundred other former Darwinistas I could list
In 2011 a paper in the journal Biological Theory stated, "Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope." - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis," Biological Theory, Vol. 6: 89-102 (December, 2011).
Eugene Koonin, of the National Center for Biotechnology Information stated in Trends in Genetics that there are major problems in core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as the "traditional concept of the tree of life" and the view that "natural selection is the main driving force of evolution."
Koonin added, "the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair" and "all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution."
Koonin concludes, "not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone."
- Eugene V. Koonin, "The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?," Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473 (2009) (internal citations omitted)
Koonin is: Senior Investigator for the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Go ahead fools, keep on laughing; even your own former Darwinian fundamentalist die-hards are dropping the inane Darwinian theory, the "modern synthesis".
in 2008, William Provine, a Cornell University historian of science and evolutionary biologist, gave a talk before the History of Science Society arguing that "every assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false":
1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . . 4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution. 5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution. 6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution. 7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution. 8. Definition of "species" was clear[--]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr. 9. Speciation was understood in principle. 10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life. 11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms. 12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms. 13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis. 14. Molecular biology has stolen from paleontology all ability to construct phylogenies.
-- William Provine, Prof of biology, Cornell U., in Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.
Wow, that about sums up the state of current neo Darwinian stupidities.
So much for neo Darwinism.
Read it and weep you misinformed, out of date, obsolete blowhards.
///Anonymous said...
This is through laboratory conditions which are not likely to occur in nature natural petrification as it is takes far longer.
///
that only proves INTELLIGENT DESIGN
but please explain octopus and jellyfish fossils...soft tissue must be fossilized quickly
and then theres the fish fossil giving birth... thousands or millions of years?!?!?!?
alrighty then
Amen, excellent answer
Amen, excellent answer
Roman's 14:11, 12
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
It's real. Fossils cannot take millions years to form. I live on a farm. Dead things disappear quickly.
A domestic rabbit died this past summer. He was gone, all but some hair, in three days.
Even secular scientists now admit fossils form quickly.
How to explain "cross strata fossils" like upright, fossilized trees?
There is abundant evidence for God's creation. As a former biology major and someone who was a skeptic for four decades, I can no longer deny the evidence:
Earth is only about six thousand years old.
As secular scientists admit, we are all one race, descended from a single Male and female.
Fossils form quickly.
The big bang is laughably silly. Nothing exploded from nothing making everything? Hahaha!
Evolution is impossible. The odds if a single protein forming by chance is 1x10^250. Even then ya only have a single protein.
If SETI were to find an intelligent radio signal, it would be defined intelligent by its containing information. What is DNA?! A Ls Bill Gates said, "DNA is like a computer program, but far more advanced than any software ever created."
Mutations remove information from the genome mutations NEVER add information. Do dogs change? Sure. Into what? Dogs.
Its not about the evidence. Its about worldview.
If God exists, then we are obligated to Him. Folks can't have that. So they worship the god of self, the word of man, and the religion of humanism.
Check out Dr. Jason Lisle on YouTube: Creationism IS the Science.
No this is near the Thames river in England there is a limestone overt and and people hand up teddy bears, tennis shoes, coke bottles. They come back months later and have fossils. If it takes far longer. How come we have found dinosaur fossils with tissue still on them... From what I know about decay this stuff shouldn't exist. The bones should be dust after millions of years. So being biased and look for the truth for once.
I think we can all agree that it looks really cool though!
I been saying that for years. Science is 100% fact. Theories are guessing on beliefs
Post a Comment