What does that prove except that some species have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years while others have gone through dramatic changes? Nice try.
2006-10-09 10:58:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Calling it a taunt does not eliminate the fact that we have demonstrated the fallacies in your reasoning.
Thirteen mammal skeletons across 46 orders, and 5,500 species. It sounds like someone's "cherry picking" the data to pick out the few exceptions that vaguely demonstrate what you want to prove. You can put all the arrows you want on similar features; they are only similar and you can see subtle evolutionary variations in your "definitive" display.
Biologists (serious scientists, not "evolutionists") look at the whole of the fossil record, not just what they need to construct a talking point.
2006-10-09 11:56:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
So, what is this supposed to tell us? That these things look the same as they did 250 million years ago?
Not everything evolves. Evolution is basically adapting to your envronment. If there were ants living 250 million years ago and doing the same thingsd thay did today, eating the same things that eat today then there was no change in their environment and therefore they didnt have to evolve. Evolution happen when something HAS to chage, not just because time passes.
Read, read , read. And dont believew everything you see on the internet is true. Oh wait I forget, words that are written down HAVE to be true.
2006-10-09 10:49:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by wilchy 4
·
7⤊
0⤋
Didn't you ask this about 50 times yesterday? No different responses - that museum proves nothing as it leaves out anything that would actually point towards evolution (which is a lot) and what it does include does not disprove anything.
2006-10-09 11:02:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sage Bluestorm 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Wait... a "creation" museum is claiming it has things that are millions of years old? I thought the earth was only about 6000 years old according to creation "science". Really, they can't have it both ways.
2006-10-09 10:56:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by The Resurrectionist 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Defeat of evolution? Creationism isn't science.
2006-10-09 10:49:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
2006-10-09 10:50:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
1⤋
You want to be entertained eh...well um, let's see...
Michael Moore is God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and he died for your sins. Hillary Clinton was his Holy Mother and gave virgin birth to him, in a manger owned by the ACLU.
Oh yeah, and America should pass laws that force the rich to share all their money, and force all Americans to convert to Islam, plant trees, get abortions, speak Spanish and march in gay pride parades.
2006-10-09 11:07:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Umm... the Creation museum is to science what Disneyland is to reality...
2006-10-09 10:49:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Blackacre 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
Why bother? I find Christian's beliefs as funny/phony as those of the Atheists. Anyway, Y'all keep slugging it out. You know the only science that an Atheist accepts is the one that "proves" their own religion. Crap, did I say "religion?" Now I'm gonna get reported.
2006-10-09 10:55:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋