Comments on: Dinosaurs Man’s Best Friend?

By: Brandon

Brandon — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:48:35 +0000

Another thing with this is that you can argue specific points and I would have a hard time debating these examples without researching them on my own or talking to someone more knowledgeable. But one thing I can tell you for certain is that there is no branch of science that will support a 6000 year old earth. Never..

By: Michael Spitler

Michael Spitler — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 03:50:04 +0000

Another explanation would be plate tectonics. We know now, THROUGH SCIENCE, that the surface of the Earth is composed of many plates that slip and slide against each other, as well as press against each other. When this happens, it can cause distortions in the layers of the soil that resemble the folds you see. Plate tectonics is also why we now know that earthquakes are merely naturally occurring disasters, and not the wrath of the gods. Distortions and changes in the crust along fault lines has been documented after major earthquakes.

Anyways, lets step back a bit. What evidence do you have that a god exists in the first place? If you can’t prove that it exists any argument that the Grand Canyon is evidence of a great biblical flood is moot.

By: Joshua Jones

Joshua Jones — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:38:31 +0000

“There’s so much scientific data that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, but all of that is lost in the futile attempts at the religious to try and justify their false beliefs.”

Is there?

What about folds in fold in the tapeats sandstone in the grand canyon ; showing that those folds were created when the “rock” was still pliable ,because they are not cracked. Impossible for a millions of years geologist.
Or what about the between the coconino sandstone and the hermit shale in the grand cayon. According the the evolutionary geological timeline, there is 10 million years missing between the two of them. That’s a good bit of gap.

“Anyone who’s taken an elementary science class will laugh at this, but I digress.”
Isn’t that similar to the what was taught, regarding evolution, that vestigal organs are organs that have lost their original purpose? I.E. , the tail bone , or perhaps the appendix? regardless of current ’scientific’ findings that they do serve purposes….that they are not “left over” , but rather purposely placed there ? Or perhaps when we are taught as youngsters that the human embryo recapitulates through certain development stages…. of course regardless of this being shown to have been a hoax perpetrated by Ernst Haeckel ?

By: Michael Spitler

Michael Spitler — Sat, 31 May 2008 04:54:42 +0000

The most offensive part of this is that they take something which only science was able to discover; dinosaurs, and shoehorn that fact in with their creationist mythology, all while denying the conclusions that same painstaking research ultimately led to, like the fact that the Earth is billions of years old.

Hopefully a century from now people will look back at this and laugh…