Sandsted
Sr. Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 275
- 1
I'm sorry if I come off as close minded, I'm not, but from what I've been taught the eye can't evolve, if you have a whole race of hemophiliacs, populating the earth doesn't seem real likely. And I do not sit and copy and paste off of Christian websites, you make blind assumptions about me. I have found quotes by searching certain people for like Charles Darwin. Who admitted that there would have to be millions of "missing links," transitional life forms that would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. But despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated. Unless you have something I've never seen?
In the theory of evolution, it is a good theory, but...I don't see a fact, I don't see a fossil, to my knowledge it is just that...a theory. How land animals came about, there's no fossils to support that that is a composition of your imagination. I once believed the earth is so old, I was deceived by what they teach in schools. I was taught that perhaps each day it speaks about in the bible could actually be millions of years to us, but a day to god. This is untrue, each one was a day. "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."
And yes the church is wrong on many things, they even labeled dowsing wicked because they didn't understand. But you miss a major point, the church didn’t write the bible.
And I don't trust your geology. The Ancient American, in issues #37 and #43, had an article about the hammer, which was embedded in "cretaceous" rock.
The Bell and the Hammer: Two “Impossible” Finds by Dennis Ballard appeared in issue #37. This embedded hammer was found by Max Hahn near London, Texas, in June, 1934. According to Ballard, “the hammer is man-made, and it had to be in existence before it could be encased by this cretaceous stone, which is supposedly millions of years old, but clearly, cannot be, because man has been around for only a relatively shorter period time.”
Paul Jones from Dallas, Texas responded to the hammer article in a letter to the editor in #38 of the Ancient American. Jones states, “I would point out that the use of concrete at least as far back as Roman times has been proven by the presence of concrete dock remains in ancient Mediterranean ports. The embedded Texas hammer might not be the first case where a thoughtless workman left his tools laying in a wet concrete mixture only to have it harden around them. One way to settle the issue would be to take a piece of the wooden handle remains from the hammer (evident in the photograph) and perform a C-14 measurement. Also, by analyzing a cross-section of the attached stone material, a search for the presence of solidified air bubbles might reveal that the stone is indeed artificial.”
Robert Helfinstine also wrote about the embedded hammer in his article, “Texas Artifact: Facts and Philosophy” which was published in the Ancient American, #43. Helfinstine states, “It was found along the Llano River near the mouth of Red Creek. Only a portion of the wooden handle was exposed when it was found, the hammer head being totally encased in the rock. The original identification of the rock type was Ordivician. Later analysis of the area by geologist Jon Watson of Austin, Texas, showed it to be basal Cretaceous concretionary sandstone, the same material that makes up the bank and ledges along the Llano River where the hammer was found. The rock encasing the hammer was not broken open until about 1946-47 by George Hahn, Max’s son. The hammer head is nearly 6 inches long with the working ends of different designs. Identification of the hammer characteristics based on scientific evaluation is not difficult. Answering the question of how the hammer got embedded in concretionary sandstone depends on the philosophical basis for world history one accepts.”
The stone that the hammer encased in is not basal Cretaceous concretionary sandstone. Orthodox dating of this formation places it near 135 million years ago.
Geology may say that the earth is older than I believe but it…apparently also says humans were making hammers 135 million years ago.
My scanner doesn’t work right now, I do have a picture of the hammer but I can’t post it, basically it’s a hammer with a short broken off handle, with organic rock surrounding it.
But I am wondering about the “missing link” or any evidence of one. As I said before, evolution is a theory and to many a religion. You speak about how fish crawled upon the earth to feed, there is no evidence to support that…it is a composition of your imagination. I see now that yes, evolution is possible, that doesn’t prove that it is going on or has happened. When I was younger I thought that there was no evidence to support a religion, I thought that my family and I believed in God just because that is what we were taught at a young age. That is a good argument that I even made against my self. But there is a lot of evidence to support my religion. Debating religion is an area I’ve always avoided, but now I’ve realized that if it is to be true there has to be evidence, and there is. But I ask you, can you prove the bible wrong? Can you prove evolution?
As I said in the first place, I am not saying anything related to the earth’s age for sure. If there is good evidence to prove that the eye could evolve than much of what I’ve been taught is a lie. I will look into books that I’ve lately been reading about, I thank you for your aid.
But I may make a suggestion that when discussing such controversial items that you don’t insult those that don’t believe in your views. I didn’t ignore your statements…I never saw you make them and I will look back to find them so you don’t have to rewrite them. It isn’t wise, nor is it honorable, to make blind assumptions about people, or to exercise childish name calling and stereotyping. It was either 60 or 40% of scientist acknowledge creation. They are not all religious zealots, saying that is stereotyping.
In the theory of evolution, it is a good theory, but...I don't see a fact, I don't see a fossil, to my knowledge it is just that...a theory. How land animals came about, there's no fossils to support that that is a composition of your imagination. I once believed the earth is so old, I was deceived by what they teach in schools. I was taught that perhaps each day it speaks about in the bible could actually be millions of years to us, but a day to god. This is untrue, each one was a day. "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."
And yes the church is wrong on many things, they even labeled dowsing wicked because they didn't understand. But you miss a major point, the church didn’t write the bible.
And I don't trust your geology. The Ancient American, in issues #37 and #43, had an article about the hammer, which was embedded in "cretaceous" rock.
The Bell and the Hammer: Two “Impossible” Finds by Dennis Ballard appeared in issue #37. This embedded hammer was found by Max Hahn near London, Texas, in June, 1934. According to Ballard, “the hammer is man-made, and it had to be in existence before it could be encased by this cretaceous stone, which is supposedly millions of years old, but clearly, cannot be, because man has been around for only a relatively shorter period time.”
Paul Jones from Dallas, Texas responded to the hammer article in a letter to the editor in #38 of the Ancient American. Jones states, “I would point out that the use of concrete at least as far back as Roman times has been proven by the presence of concrete dock remains in ancient Mediterranean ports. The embedded Texas hammer might not be the first case where a thoughtless workman left his tools laying in a wet concrete mixture only to have it harden around them. One way to settle the issue would be to take a piece of the wooden handle remains from the hammer (evident in the photograph) and perform a C-14 measurement. Also, by analyzing a cross-section of the attached stone material, a search for the presence of solidified air bubbles might reveal that the stone is indeed artificial.”
Robert Helfinstine also wrote about the embedded hammer in his article, “Texas Artifact: Facts and Philosophy” which was published in the Ancient American, #43. Helfinstine states, “It was found along the Llano River near the mouth of Red Creek. Only a portion of the wooden handle was exposed when it was found, the hammer head being totally encased in the rock. The original identification of the rock type was Ordivician. Later analysis of the area by geologist Jon Watson of Austin, Texas, showed it to be basal Cretaceous concretionary sandstone, the same material that makes up the bank and ledges along the Llano River where the hammer was found. The rock encasing the hammer was not broken open until about 1946-47 by George Hahn, Max’s son. The hammer head is nearly 6 inches long with the working ends of different designs. Identification of the hammer characteristics based on scientific evaluation is not difficult. Answering the question of how the hammer got embedded in concretionary sandstone depends on the philosophical basis for world history one accepts.”
The stone that the hammer encased in is not basal Cretaceous concretionary sandstone. Orthodox dating of this formation places it near 135 million years ago.
Geology may say that the earth is older than I believe but it…apparently also says humans were making hammers 135 million years ago.
My scanner doesn’t work right now, I do have a picture of the hammer but I can’t post it, basically it’s a hammer with a short broken off handle, with organic rock surrounding it.
But I am wondering about the “missing link” or any evidence of one. As I said before, evolution is a theory and to many a religion. You speak about how fish crawled upon the earth to feed, there is no evidence to support that…it is a composition of your imagination. I see now that yes, evolution is possible, that doesn’t prove that it is going on or has happened. When I was younger I thought that there was no evidence to support a religion, I thought that my family and I believed in God just because that is what we were taught at a young age. That is a good argument that I even made against my self. But there is a lot of evidence to support my religion. Debating religion is an area I’ve always avoided, but now I’ve realized that if it is to be true there has to be evidence, and there is. But I ask you, can you prove the bible wrong? Can you prove evolution?
As I said in the first place, I am not saying anything related to the earth’s age for sure. If there is good evidence to prove that the eye could evolve than much of what I’ve been taught is a lie. I will look into books that I’ve lately been reading about, I thank you for your aid.
But I may make a suggestion that when discussing such controversial items that you don’t insult those that don’t believe in your views. I didn’t ignore your statements…I never saw you make them and I will look back to find them so you don’t have to rewrite them. It isn’t wise, nor is it honorable, to make blind assumptions about people, or to exercise childish name calling and stereotyping. It was either 60 or 40% of scientist acknowledge creation. They are not all religious zealots, saying that is stereotyping.
