You believe in evolution?

Ahaha, Polonium halos?

"Gentry's hypothesis calls for pure, concentrated polonium at the center of each ring."

Evolution is a fuzzy word. We need to define it. Evolution is massive increases in genetic information.

Dog breeds are descent within kind, which is not evolution.

Evolution has no mechanism. Also, when properly defined, it has never been observed, according to top evolutionists.

Creation best explains descent within kind, and the fossil record.

P.S. - 27 years later, the Polonium Halos paper by Robert Gentry has still not been refuted by another science paper. Why not?

Please tell me you aren't using polonium radiohalos as evidence of creation... Creationists stopped using them as evidence in 2005 after every argument for them as evidence was shot down by other experts in nuclear physics, geology, etc.

Just in case you're unfamiliar - polonium is produced as a daughter product of the radioactive decay of uranium. Uranium has a half life of approx 4.47 billion years and is a common element in natural granites and biotites. Decay through elements leading up to polonium is via alpha decay which does not stain the surrounding rock, polonium decays via beta radiation, which does discolour the surrounding rock, causing the "halos" that Robert Gentry suggested were evidence of a young Earth. Basically, he was talking out his ****.

It started off bad and went downhill from there. The title/header states that Carl Sagan didn't believe in evolution. Most people can recognize that is an outright lie at the start. From there it degenerated into some guy in his kitchen talking pseudo-scientific babble over a glass of water. The video currently has a one star rating. Ugh. You Tube are really great substitute to scientific journals and books for information.

No. I accept evolution as an observable process, and natural selection as the predominant theory that currently best explains the mechanism by which evolution (micro and macro) takes place and is supported by scientific evidence. Like all theories, it is subject to amendment or replacement by a theory that better explains the observable process of evolution and is SCIENTIFICALLY supported.

If you have a scientifically supportable theory that better explains the observable process of evolution, please enlighten us all.

One day people will realise that the Bible opinion ion creation is exactly the same as Darwins theories on evolution. People have spent so many years at looking at how different they are no one has explored the possibility that they are one and the same but just over different time frames e.g.

Darwins talks about evolution over millions of years, and than man evolved from apes, evolved from fish etc etc.

Bible worshippers believe that God created the world, Universe etc in 6 days and he rested on the 7th, twhy has no one explored the possibility that, to God, 1 day is = 1 million earth days. Why has no one thought that the God definition of a day is not 1 day in our terms but millions of years.

God does not see time as we do, to use a second from death can seem a life time, to God a life time can seem like just a second. Once we stop trying to see the Bible in actual human years or days, it all makes better sense.

Then both theories seem to become more clearer.

i believe in evolution but i also believe in a God

somewhere along in my studies i came across this interesting statement

science is by a means of disproving the entity of a God. but if you happen to ask a scientist if they believe in a God or not, the most common answer will be that they do. the reason being that man can only understand so much about our universe. once one understands as much as they can, one much wonder if there is something bigger out there that we as men cannot understand, like and all mighty being such as God

Jeez, how often are you people going to drag out that tired You Tube video?

Do yourself a favor, go to the library, get some books on evolution and learn. You tube is not the answer, my friend.

Creation doesn't pin anything, as it never happened. For the record, dog breeding is an example of artificial selection, not natural selection.

You fail on at least two fronts.

Different breeds of dogs does not prove evolution.

Our cross-breeding of dogs as not improved dogs.

The chihuahua would last in the wild... till dinnertime..?