Do you believe in God or evolution? (Page 7 of 15)

Not nessisarily. That was the specimen I was referring to you know, and they don't list red blood cells being a part of what was uncovered. You're confusing it with the blood vessles they did find (which is where you'd find red and white blood cells. But again, it didn't mention the blood cells being preserved). And mind you, this might not be a unique find. Generally, fossils are never treated in this manner. They're a lot more rare then people think so every attempt is made to preserve them. But in this case that wasn't possible, so after they had to cut the fossilized leg in two, there wasn't any harm of cutting it even more. And thats when they discovered the soft tissue.

I don't trust that first link. Its biased to your view, so of course it has the information you want it to say. National Geographic is not biased. They do not lean towards one way or they other. They only tell it how it is. And they didn't mention spefically red blood cells. Yes, soft tissue was preserved. Yes, blood vessiles were among the preserved tissue. But it did not mention actual blood cells. Just that the fossil contained the tissues for bone formation.

I doubt that they have ever said evolution is a fact. The may have talked about it as such because there is more proof.

Lol, screw evolution, fettism is what im about.

topic closed as far as im concerned

LOL, if was screaming you'd know it. I won't even begin to point out your "closed-mindedness. As for God and evolution co-existing, I just don't see that being reasonable! Here's that religious site's take on that:

Draco, you say that there's more proof for evolution, but could you please give me some? Remember that there's that guy who will give $100,000 to the first guy who has proof for evolution. And National Geographic has presented evolution as fact. Here's several links. Notice how they say "freeing it from a 65-million-year-old rock tomb." They failed to say anything like "may", or might, or anything like that.

And here they say "a new dinosaur species dating back 90 million years," they presented it as total fact, as if it were science!(Remember, BOTH creation, and evolution are just theories!

Look at this one, I quote, "Preliminary studies of the 67-million-year-old hadrosaur,". Never a question as to the "fact" of evolution is there?

There, that's just three articles that present evolution as fact! Want more? I found about a million of 'em!

Exactly! Oops I spammed with a one word...sorry.

draco, you're not doubting carbon dating are you? because it's very accurate as a matter of fact.

and for that "And some believe God made the universe, but largely let everything happen naturally" is the religious view known as Deism.

also, religion still fails. evolution does have more proof than creation, here's a simple reason:

the bible has been re-written who knows how many times? it's all rewrites in order to fit other people's point of views, so there is no one single point of view that we can believe is to be more correct than others, where evolution really basically still follows everything that Darwin and whoever the guy is who came up with the evolution theory, because it's so simple. and they basically have proven that the Big Bang was indeed real thanks to the large hadron collider.

I should probably link my term paper on here to help give some facts to you guys... It was called "Evolution or Creationism? The Debate for How the World Began", I turned it in last semester. Anyone interested?

LOL! Everybody I know at home think I'm mentally ill...I have no idea why... hehehehe...

As for that site ignoring carbon dating? Here's a link.

Hadron Collider?

Creation, (intelligent Design) and the Bible are very close. But you can separate them Fett_II. And Darwin observed MICRO evolution(which is completly scientific), but then he went to extremes, and streched his imagination to MACRO evolution. At first he said there would be MILLIONS of missing links. But they never found any, did they? Show me a missing link guys!

And by the way, none of you guys ever answered my post about how you're "current human evolution" would make short people inferior to tall. Or about the people getting shorter? You never answered...

I never said short people are inferior to tall.... I said that as a whole, the human race is getting taller.

The earth has changed drastically within the millions of years life has been on this planet. We only find fossils when the earth erodes on the surface enough to that point in time to where the animal or plant died. Finding fossils just isn't that easy, even when you know where to look. And, the majority of this planet is water. Who knows what sort of fossils are underneath the oceans! After all, the first life was ocean life. We only find aquatic fossils when the sea dries up in certain part and becomes land. Perhaps also, there are fossils of land life underneath the sea, which in the past, was dry land.