Those aren't human. They are Metatarsus dinosaur tracks.
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/mantrack.htm
From a historical standpoint
-
full nelson
- 8-Bit Ninja
- Posts: 884
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003 13:58
- Location: West Virginia
- Contact:
This is already apparant - just look at people - notice how all people look different - even the most identical twins have some differences - although sometimes you need to see them a lot before you notice - which is why random people often come up to me and say "hey Kester, I didn't know you were in Melbourne.ShredStylez wrote: microevlolution is the small horizontal changes along the lines the lines of a species like small change in leg length or miniscule changes in diet or shape over 20-100 years whereas the dna stays the same and it is still the same species. This is also called adaptation which is a natural law in all organisms. same dna just diff characteristics
Who told you this? It is completely untrue.macroevolution is the vertical change when a species actually morphs into a new species. evolution says that a species never stays stays the same, and that it alwayschanges.
Firstly - again this is completly untrue - there are a number of species between fish and frogs - in particular Mudskippers and the Axolotl. But also very few animals fosilise. For example there are only 3 T Rex fossiles in the world - and they were believe to have been around for a very long time. It could well have taken a much shorter time for frogs to evolve - this would be another explanation for no in between fossiles.it also says that the frog evolved from the fish. if this is true then over 100 million-200 million year time span there would have to had been thousands upon thousands of transitions bewtween the fish and from while it evolved. this number would basically shatter the existance of both the fish and the frog, but never have we discovered a transition period for any animal. we've only found a fish fossil and a frog fossil.
where did you come up with the idea that every species is constantly changing? This is completley false - no evolutionary scientists believes this.also if every species is constanly changing then no animal we have today should be exactly like an animal millions of years ago. But in fact a fossil found by an evolutionist, was a dragonfly that was said to be 30 million years old but it exactly fitted todays dragonfly.
I think someone has already answered this - but anyway - it's another false statement.there are also discoveries of footprints made by man set in stone walking next to a dinosaur set in stone. same rock layer which disproves in itself the geometric time scale.
The truth is that trying to argue that evolution does not exist on scientific grounds is destined to fail. You would have just as much luck argueing that world is flat - like it used to say so in the Bible until it was proved wrong and they retranslated the start of Genesis. I'm an athiest but the only arguement that fundamentalist christian should use against evolution in my opinion is "Evolution doesn't exist - God just created all the evidence to test your faith"
damn - I guess I failed that one and will burn forever in hell
