(04-04-2011, 06:32 PM)Rosarium Wrote: It is better nutrition.

Look at the heights of North Koreans for versus South Koreans. South Koreans are over 4" taller on average.

Also look at the height of Americans and the Dutch. The Americans used to be taller, but the Dutch are now taller.

These are averages.

Human height has not changed. The average heights of populations changed, yes, but not by much. Napolean was 5'7" for example.The average Roman legionnaire was 5'6".

It is like thinking that people getting fatter is evolution.

I actually did alot of research on your answer and I found this to support it.

It also might have to do with the fact that all the processed food that people are eating and I hear there are steroids in the milk.
The book to read on this is
' The Theory of Evolution judged by reason and faith ' by Cardinal Ruffini.
Great work.
The whole thrust of evolution is to establish the supremacy of matter and denying the spirit.
Its suspiciously close to bogus behaviourism  - we do everything because we're reinforced, here we do everyhting because thats the way we evolved.
Its not even a scientific theory because you can't falsify it.
The Black Salamander larvae have gills when inside the mother but lose them at full development. Evolutionists say these are a relic of a life they must have lived in the water. Nope - they need them to exist in the watery environment of the embryo to draw ovular liquids from mothers body.They are not evidences of evolution  - they are organs highly adapted to the conditions in which the larvae are growing.
Evolution is trivial, bogus and  and riddled with fraud and hype and holds the world in a powerful delusion.
My statements not those of the Cardinal - but the Salamander case is from the book.
Well my comment is not very theological but I'm no monkey's uncle.

I spent many hours debating with atheists at the hubpages forum about evolution.  It's a waste of time.  They are brain dead.  In fact they could possibly be monkey's uncles.  :laughing:

[Image: Darwin_as_monkey.gif]

Sorry, I didn't have the patience to read through all the posts in this thread.
(01-06-2011, 12:49 AM)InNomineDomini Wrote:
(01-04-2011, 05:28 PM)Nic Wrote:   Evolutionists needed extremely long time spans to make their unbelievable mechanisms seem even remotely workable. 

Yet still there is no fossil record.

I've found a fossil record.

[Image: The-Seekers-The-Four--Only-Se-384816.jpg]
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha.

ggreg - i was going to put the Stones up as the oldest recorded fossils then I thought thats wrong they really should be up on a thread ' proof that there's life after death.'
its life Jim but not as we know it.
(04-04-2011, 07:13 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I'm sure it does. And so do most anthropology textbooks. Similarly, I can find all sorts of historical "facts" in modern history books that amount to little more than speculation. Usually, this is the result of not telling the whole story or failing to provide all of the evidence. But these falsehoods are no more "true" than is much of the alleged evidence that is often used to "prove" evolution.

But the key word here is "alleged". An extensive study of each one will reveal why evolution is still considered by scientists to be a theory and not a scientific fact.

ok about argument that if we study more of these species, evolution will always be considered be a theory, but that's what biologists are for, and that's why people like meyers and dawkins so hell bent in proving this theory because of all the evidence they have, and obviously there much more trained in this field than all of us.
Micro evolution is possible and in tune with the Church Teaching.
Macro evolution is impossible and against the Church Teaching.

The former is when something adapts to an environment to be better suited to it. E.g. Mongoloids getting small flat noses and small eyes to cope with their environment.
The latter is when something changes from one species to another.E.g. a brute ape changing over time into a rational human.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)