Grumpy

The gene for cannibalism would surely have caused Majungatholus to eat itself into extinction within a few generations. Therefore, it must have been specially created.

Evolution is so silly.

Rancid

Is that so? What about various other species around today that occasionally resort to cannibalism?

Rancid

"Rogers said cannibalism is a common animal feeding strategy and scientists believe animals and creatures ranging from insects to lions eat members of their own species for a variety of ecological and evolutionary reasons. "

From the very article you cited!

sourdough

doesnt creation story says that Earth is 6000 years young?
how come the dinos fosills are dated WAY older than that

btw polar bears too sometimes kill/eat their young,how does that disprove evolution?

pz

Not to mention..."gene for cannibalism"? How stupid.

gallo

But they only do it to prevent them from backsliding and becoming brown bears again.

Magus55

Actually there are theories coming out about this. First of all, radioactive dating isn't accurate into millions or billions of years. And there is a theory known as the cDK theory:

Q: How can Christians believe that God created the universe 6,000 years ago (plus or minus), when there are galaxies millions, even billions of light years away?

A: One of my favorite questions. Research is underway in physics and mathematics that may prove there are actually two timelines: atomic, and dynamic (sometimes referred to as 'orbital'). Atomic time is measured by the motion of the electron around the nucleus of the atom, which, if the cDK (light speed decay) hypothesis is proved correct, has been slowing down since matter was first created. If this is the case, then all processes that depend on the behavior of the atom, including atomic dating, would be affected. The net result would be a much higher age indicated in the analysis of rocks and fossils, than would be indicated using dynamic time -- measured by the orbit of the earth around the sun -- which has not changed.

The cDK hypothesis may not be correct. But it happens to make better sense than any other theory regarding the vast discrepancy in time between the scientific view and the theological view. The cDK hypothesis also solves a majority of other problems that presently plague our best cosmological theories of the origin of the universe. (from .http://www.biblephysics.com/index2.cfm?page=faq)

Obviously this is only a theory right now, but it still opens the door to a possible explanation for the apparent age of things compared to their actual age

cricket

No, what makes the most sense is to discard the theological view because of its complete absence of evidence.

The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Obviously this is only a theory right now, but it still opens the door to a possible explanation for the apparent age of things compared to their actual age.

To be a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word, there must be some evidence -- in fact, quite a lot of it. Accordingly, to refer to cDK as a theory (or even a hypothesis) is premature, to say the least.

Cheers,

Michael

Coragyps

Bullshit, Magus. Pure, unvarnished, smelly bullshit. And you've been shown that it is on these forums.

Back up your assertion, or quit making it.