A dog trying to bite a balloon, or a creationist trying to explain away the fossil record?
2007-03-22 12:35:07 · 52 answers · asked by Voight-Kampff 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
They both give me vertigo, but the dog is cute to watch. The creationist is just dangerous. I pity the dog. I don't find it funny when a balloon is left in the room just to frustrate and eventually frighten the dog. It's like teasing a baby. However, we can blame the owner for that. The creationists must take personal responsibility.
According to *Pleiades* above me, "Any real scientist will acknowledge that the fossil record is incomplete, and not 100% reliable."
Yes, dear. That is what makes science science. It is always maintaining fluidity rather than remaining stagnant. When new tools of discovery come along scientists use them to prove or disprove theories. Evolution is a theory, but one based on facts. Do you think you're alone in faith? We all have faith in something but that doesn't make it factual or real. Has science ever been wrong? Of course. This occurs when one actually pursues knowledge in hopes of finding truths. Sometimes we are wrong. Does this prove a God? Absolutely not. Why must the natural progression of knowledge be explained away by your idea of a creator?
And yet that one made me giggle. However dangerous creationists can be, they are cute and funny sometimes. I still give the dog my vote though.
2007-03-22 13:00:57 · answer #1 · answered by Me, Thrice-Baked 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, since it's fairly obvious you're just trying to stir up trouble, and make people angry I might as well embarrass you. Any real scientist will acknowledge that the fossil record is incomplete, and not 100% reliable. Biologists and geneticists are constantly disproving there own theories and coming up with new ones, yet many evolutionists still teach those old theories. It's well known that the fossil record isn't reliable, and can't be put up on a pedastal to seemingly "prove all" that you want. There is substantial evidence against carbon-12, and carbon-14 dating, which shows that radioactive dating isn't consistant, and can't be held as a firm source to identify the age of things. If you research Polonium 210, -214, and -218 you can learn that it creates geological halos in mica, which is odd, because for a halo to form, the isotope must be present for thousands of years, yet the half-lives of these isotopes are extremely short, and would not be near enough time to form a halo. In a nutshell..
2007-03-22 12:45:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Or an evolutionist trying to explain "evidence" that doesn't exist. Or explain away evidence that points to creationism.
How do you explain the fossils of fish on top of the highest mountains in the world? Or the human hand prints found inside of a dinosaur print set in stone? Or a troglodyte (which evolutionists agree are the oldest forms of life on earth, and believe vanished from earth over 1 billion years ago) found crushed by a human heel in petrified foot prints (humans were not here till 100's of millions of years later). If they troglodyte were already set in the rock, then the human heel print could not have crushed it. After all, mud CANNOT petrify into rock and change back into mud, then change again back into rock.
Or how do you explain the radiation rings in granite. If the earth cooled slowly over billions of years, and palladium 214 has a HALF life of only 30 seconds, how is it found in granite which supposedly took billions of years to cool?
Interesting...
2007-03-22 14:51:25 · answer #3 · answered by t_fo_sizzle 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the dog trying to bite a balloon is more funny. a creationist trying to explain away the fossil record is, to me, just pathetic.
2007-03-22 12:39:15 · answer #4 · answered by mesquitemachine 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Ummm... Neither. Dogs that bite balloons filled with helium can cause extreme danger to the dogs system (unlike humans, who can take in helium and speak in cartoonish voices), and a creationist trying to explain away the fossil record? That's just plain sad.
If I HAD to choose, the creationist one would be boring, but have safer outcomes. Although the dog one would be much more entertaining...
2007-03-22 12:38:38 · answer #5 · answered by AnneMarie 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I believe that God created all things, even you, but I've never felt the need to explain away the fossil record. God is creator--how that appears to us or how we view or interpret what we see around us does not impact the truth of God as Creator in any way.
A dog trying to bit a balloon is funny, though.
Blessings.
2007-03-22 12:41:32 · answer #6 · answered by happygirl 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A dog trying to bite a balloon is funniest or an evolutionist trying to explain how fossils confirm "evolutionary quackery".
2007-03-22 12:46:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I say a dog trying to bite a balloon. I could watch that for hours. I find creationists to be an annoying waste of skin.
2007-03-22 12:38:56 · answer #8 · answered by SquirrelBait 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hello Ephraim … :)
A dog trying to bite a balloon, would be the funniest..
Because I can explain, why there are fossils.. :)
In Jesus Most Precious Name..
With Love..In Christ.. :)
2007-03-22 12:46:13 · answer #9 · answered by EyeLovesJesus 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
a dog trying to bite a balloon, well it's really funny.
2007-03-22 12:39:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋