Hi metis. Good afternoon. Looking at the fossil record does not prove a split.
Why do you continue to use the word "prove" after several people have already informed you of your mistake?
If anything, the fossil record proves Noah's flood and that of rapid burial.
That's absurd as fossil deposits are layered. We don't find rabbits, or indeed any mammal, in cambrian rocks for example. We don't find chickens together with dinosaurs. We don't find humans together with trilobites. And so on.
Most of the fossils we have today resulted from the flood.
PRATT BS
It was just two days ago on the Sabbath Day, when I heard another story of one who had purchased a beautiful farm high up on a hill with an incredible view to see miles around on a clear day. Nearly every one of the rocks that were broken on that elevation contained a sea creature inside. This was undoubtedly resulted from the flood.
No. It was because at one point in the distant past, that place was a seabed.
Many fossils such as fossilized jellyfish, show by the details of their soft, fleshly portions that were were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.)
For fossilization to occur, burial in the right way is a necessity otherwise no fossils form.
The idea that only a physically impossible magical flood is capable of doing that, is so absurd that it doesn't even merit any further comment.
The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas. These observations plus the occurence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly - not over hundreds of millions of years.
Multiple layers of deposit don't happen "rapidly".
Futhermore, almost all sediments that formed today's rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood.
FUN FACT: geology as a science was actually kickstarted by christians who set out to find evidence of the biblical flood. Instead, what they found was that no such thing ever happened.
Let's look at DNA for a bit and see what science has shown. Evolutionists say the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984 - 2004), evolutionists and the media resorted to lies again by claiming that human DNA is 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These false statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.
The chimp genome has been sequenced in full for quite some time now.
The close relationship is a genetic fact.
Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and compared. The overall differences, which are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected, include about thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements. Although only about 4% of human and chimpanzee DNA differ, those critical differences amount to a vast chasm.
It depends what exactly is being measured.
But by any and all accounts, chimp and human DNA are very close together.
And considering the split happened some 7 million years ago, that is more then enough to account for the differences.
The differences, btw, are hierarchical in nature. Exactly like evolution predicts.
I should add that natural processes cannot produce large amounts of information.
BS
The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books.
And it is the result of (at least) 3.8 billion years of evolution
Let's pretend that somehow, despite evidence to the contrary, that matter and life arose - perhaps only a bacterium - the probability that mutations and natural selections produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero. It would be similar to producing 4,000 books with the following procedure:
a) Start with a meaningful phrase
b) Retype the phrase, but add letters and make some errors
c) See if the new phrase is meaningful
d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it
e) Return to step "b"
False analogy.
Meaning of language is determined before hand.
And DNA doesn't deal in "meaning". It is not a means of communication.
DNA is a molecule engaged in a chemical reaction.
You're not even comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing organic apples and plastic oranges.
You are in the category of "not even wrong" here.
To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10 to the power of 40,000 trials
Strawman. Evolution is gradual. The enzymes used by organisms today are the result of at least 3.8 billion years of gradual evolution.
Does that sound plausible to you?
No. Good thing it's not what evolution requires to happen.
But how should you know? Clearly all you can do is parrot creationist liars.
The mechanism of the theory of evolution for the explanation of the development of life is wholly inadequate
The strawman you argue indeed is.
The actual theory is not.
and studies in to DNA have not supported the theory of evolution
I can only laugh at that.
. The Bible is however plausible, that life was created and designed by a thoughtful and intelligent Higher Power
Claims of magic by undemonstrable and physically impossible entities are not plausible. They never are
and that life on this earth is only a few thousands years old.
There's drawings in caves over 50k years old.
There's rather complete fossils over 350 million years old.
The oldest trace of life on this planet is
3.8 BILLION years old.
You may return to your copy-paste ostrich defenses now.
